 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7
|
|
|
Subject: Bush, Iraq, War : Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 08:03 PM Septembeer 16th-19-8th and it's already reached 100 posts. "Will the line reach on to the crack of doom?" - so here is part seven of this thread Search for "Bush, Iraq" threads
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 08:09 PM Do politicians generally go in for giving blank cheques (checks?)to unstable characters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 20 Sep 02 - 09:53 PM Heck, they're perfectly willing as unstable characters to take 'em and take 'em they do, so why not pass a few smaller ones on to other unstable characters. Ahh, which of the unstable characters do you happen to have on your mind, McGrath? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 10:15 PM Well there's this Congress resolution I beieve they are lining up to railroad through. As I understand it, it says in effect "Do anything at all you feel like doing Mr Bush, kind sir."
Roman Senates used to do things like that at the time Rome turned itself into an Empire. Of course, up till then Imperator just meant the man in charge, it didn't have the associations it came to have later, which are carried over into our word "Emperor". They used it instead of "Rex"("King"), because they were proud of being a Republic.
The same kind of word, in fact, as President... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 20 Sep 02 - 10:40 PM Hardly a single member of our Congress deservesd to be re-elected because hardly any of them are THINKING FOR THEMSELVES! How many are questioning the party line? How many have suddenly changed their voting habits to fit in with the crowd? Heck, I care a lot less about the party makeup of the Congress and a lot more about getting some thoughtful people who aren't afraid to buck the party leadership. Where, indeed, are the Congressmen doing their job? "War" with Iraq = "Bread and Circuses." It served the Roman Emperors well when Rome was decaying and crumbling. Don't let the people think about the real problems, and god forbid you let them think long enough to fix them. You know, hypothetically speaking, if unfettered, full-access weapons inspectors went into Iraq tomorrow, I guess it would take at least a year or so before they could come to any kind of educated conclusion. (Unless they happened upon a smallpox lab the first day or something. Unlikely.) How many people (show of hands) think that Bush is willing to wait that long? I personally think that the many comments we have heard from the administration about their desire for a "regime change" is far more indicative of their future action. Whether Iraq and weapons inspections come together or not, Bush is planning on military action. "Bread and Circuses." (Interesting thing I learned today -- you know those aluminum tubes everyone is fussing about? Iraq has been buying them for decades. They use them for artillery weapons.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 20 Sep 02 - 10:54 PM Well, heck, Nicole... If there was any doubt about the health of the Democratic Party there shouldn't be any now. Yep, dead as a door nail... And furhter proof they are perfectly willing to kill folks to keep their jobs, which none of them deserve to keep. I mean, this is unreal. Junior just throws a temper tantrum and cries and wails until people just get so tired of hearing him they say, "Yeah, just go kill so folks but can ya shugt that guy the heck up!" Great political stategy, but you know what. It wouldn't work without having all these wonderfull WMD behind him. Yeah, he could go out and pound his drum 'til the cows come home and no one would pay him any attention. Yeah, we're entering a new time of "Walking hard and carring one mighty big stick". Yeah,. like thats gonna end terrorism. Ask Sharon... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: DougR Date: 21 Sep 02 - 04:33 PM Nicole, Bobert: It never crossed your mind,I suppose, that they believe they are right, and you are wrong, right? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 21 Sep 02 - 04:48 PM You're right about that one, Dougie. It never *has* crossed my mind. I just heard that the PR campaign for attack is costing the US tax payers $200M. Hey, that ain't chump change. No wonder they have som many folks signing up for the front lines. Hmmmmmm? No one in this line? Hmmmmmmm? Well, it's only money, and the Bushs are real good at spending it on their wars, especially when they know the public is gonna throw em' out and leave the other party to pay for'em. Hey, that's the way it looks from here, Doug. But like I said earlier, the rules have changed and this President just figures he can roll over anyone or anything he wants to, and heck, I perfectly sure he can. Problem is, that for every action there is a counter action. So don't be too darned surprised when the suicide bombers find their way to your shopping mall or crowded theater. This is one darned insane policy. This man is going to get *his* war, come Hell or high water. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 21 Sep 02 - 06:54 PM Now, Doug, didn't I just get through explaining that I thought that they thought that they were doing the right thing? (Even though, of course, they aren't.) Of course, so did the Crusaders, Inquisitors, Conquistadors, terrorists, slave traders... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Sep 02 - 07:21 PM And of course the hijackers of September 11, who just knew they were right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 23 Sep 02 - 07:42 AM NicoleC (above):
"Whether Iraq and weapons inspections come together or not, Bush is planning on military action. " There is a great difference in "planning" and "doing". The inspectors are not yet in place, but the "unconditional" is starting to get qualified by the Iraqi's. Saddam has got to believe that if he does not play along to the letter, the Americans, with or without UN backing, will strike. That requires planning - extensive planning. Saddam's best bet at the moment is to appear to go along, but at the same time make the American government seem unreasonable, thereby damaging the likely-hood of a coalition, involving Iraq's neighbours, being formed. Saddam has no shortage of military advisors and they must know that if the US is forced to go it alone, without the use of Saudi airbases and territory - then chances are that nothing will happen. The precursor to the Iran - Iraq war was the opening of negotiations, by Iran, to resolve the situation in the Shat-Al-Arab. Saddam Hussein's opinion was that this willingness to negotiate was a sign of weakness - all through this dialogue Saddam was preparing for war. "Bread and Circuses" to divert public attention from domestic issues - Bush could save a fortune and divert resources to solve those domestic problems. The contention of many in this forum is that America has no real enemies and is faced with no real threat. Taking that viewpoint onboard, President Bush could therefore reduce the armed forces of America to the status and capability required of a coastal defence force. That would save a great deal of money. As the threat of nuclear attack does not exist - He could argue that American has no need of its existing nuclear arsenal and should unilaterally disarm - more money saved. With regard to foreign policy, President Bush could argue that, having involved itself in attempts to resolve potential flash-points thoroughout the world unsuccessfully for the past twenty years, it was time to admit defeat and let the people of those regions sort their differences out as best they can, in any way they can - another bunch of money saved. Having done all that - you can all rest easy and sleep save a-bed at night - RIGHT?????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 11:26 AM The following sentiments are so pure they could have been written here on the Mudcat. The great struggles of the 20th century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise. In the 21st century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to say what they think, choose who will govern them, worship as they please, educate their children — male and female, own property and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society — and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe. Who wrote it? COndolezza Scwartz, the famous Mudcat fiction-singer? Nope. Probably COndolezza Rice, of the Bush team, or one of her ghost-literati. It is mighty fine rhetoric. Unfortunately, the policy of backing it up with unilateral "preemptive" military attacks is embedded in the same document, which is Bush&Co Natiojnal Security Strategy paper, released Friday. Any dissonance there? Hmmmm.... "No-one wants to be dictated to or governed by force instead of freedom; and in order to ensure this is acheived, we reserve the right to dictate to others at will, supported by force." Whatcha tink? Rogical? Mebbe no? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 02 - 11:48 AM I love the way hawks, when cornered, just throw up the same feeble arguments. "Awwww", they say, "we'll just disassemble our defense capabilities. Would that make you commie peace-nics happy?" Ahhhh, unless I missed something here, I don't hear anyone saying we need less defense. Problem is that too many folks confuse defense with offense. And too many folks think that all change must come from either blowing folks up or threatening to blow folks up. Hey, both are terrorist acts if you're on the wrong side of the blower up-er/ blower up-ee equation. W@hat so wrong with a humanistic approach, that invilves the real hard work of including folks we might not agree with in forums that are meant to foster understanding. Nevermind... That's right, if we did that then there's a chance that the US might have to change the way it does things. No, but really, at some point in time with everyone armed to the teeth, things are gonna get out of hand and a lot of folks are going to get blown up. And they won't all be the folks that we disagree with... Yeah, we collectively haven't even scratched the surface on an out-of-the-box push for selling peace. Well, heck, if war was good enough fir my daddy and his daddy then danged if it ain't good fir me. Hmmmmmmmm? Insane. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 11:54 AM They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to come out different! :>) Problem is this "war" if that's what you wish to call it, is different. WHile we're quite accomplished at mutilating bodies, it is a real shame we haven't studied harder the much deeper art of persuading hearts. Too subtle? SSheesh. A
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 23 Sep 02 - 11:58 AM Don't quibble over semantics, Teribus. When I say Bush is "planning" on war, I don't mean hypothetical military strategies. Bush is going to get a lot of young men killed if he can get away with it because he's hung up on Iraq. Whether the reason is oil or Daddy's war or his everlasting rhetoric on "evil," I don't know, but hung up he is. Iraq is hardly the biggest threat to America right now, but it IS a convenient one. It's utter nonesense to say that America has no enemies, but the conservative lot can't see to get it through their head -- despite the rhetoric -- that those enemies are no longer other countries that we can use conventional tactics against. Our typical tactic is a massive bombing from the air (civilian casualties aren't accidents when they are planned), followed by finding some local warlord to mop up in return for being allowed to get away with the same atrocities as the previous regime, as long as he pretends to like America for a while. "Pre-emptive strikes" (another word for killing whomever you want to without adequate reason) will never make America safer; quite the contrary. They will only perpetuate the cycle of violence and draw more men and women into hating America -- the kind of men and women who have nothing left to lose and would rather die killing Americans than slowly die of some preventable, curable disease or beg for crumbs to feed their children because the bombing has collapsed their economy and they can't find a job. Americans, in general, have this hubris about American motives and American actions. Someone how it's okay when our military does gruesome things, because we're America. We must be right, because we're America. Those fools should give in because we'll crush them otherwise, and it's okay to kill foreigners, because they aren't American. The American ideals that we hold so dear rarely survive past our own borders, and most Americans are too wrapped up in their sense of superiority to even notice. It's because we are so big and powerful that we must think MORE globally, act MORE carefully, and behave ALWAYS as we would wish ourselves to be treated inside our own borders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 02 - 12:34 PM Well, put NicoleC. Now between you, Amos and myself, Teribus and Co. will have to go back to the drawing board once again and try to sell Junior and Co's war. But thats what salesmen do. ry one thing after another. Look an Junior. He's a multinationalist one minute then a unilaterist the next. Heck, before 9-11-01 he was an isolationist. He wnats this war so bad that he'll wear almost any "...ist" label to get. Now, here's another thing that bugs me about this thing. Everyone says that Rumsfield is the brains behind this thing but I heard him the other day on C-Span talking in a Congressional hearing and someone asked him about the endgame. "Like, Mr. Secretary, what are the plans for Iraq after the war." and he fell all over himself like he had never given it any thought. Hmmmmmmm? Now that is very scarey. Yeah, here is a guy who has all the huff-n-puff answers but seemed to not have a clue about what do do after you blow the folks up.... See, that says just how Hell bent Junior, Don and Co. are on attacking Iraq. They are like a pit bull and a bone. Their focus is totally on the bone and nothing else. Hmmmmmm? Just some things for Teribus and Co. to think about. I hope we don't get that old "democracy" thing thrown back at us, 'cause that's another dog that won't hunt. Plus its hard to sell something that we don't even practice ourselves. "Here, Hamed and Mohammed, you'll try some of this stuff. It's good fir ya." Hamed and Mohammed to Teribus: "Hey, you try it first." Teribus: (Coughs and looks down at his shoes..) "allready had mine, this morning, thanks. Now, drink up..." Stop Insanity Now Resist Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 23 Sep 02 - 12:42 PM As I suggested in another thread in slightly different words, Rumsfeld comes across as being as "intellectually challenged" as GW (Ghost who Walks?) himself. If he's the smart one, I'm really frightened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 02 - 01:35 PM LOL, APC Yeah, it's scarey to think of anyone of the cast of suspicious characters as being the brains of much of anything. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 02:13 PM Fuck it -- throw the buggers out and put Colin Powell in the White House. That'll revolutionize things a bit! :>) 'Bout time we had someone in there with more than one thought to rub together. He has walked the walk and will not throw terms around loosely that he has no comprehension of. Nicole, I greatly admire your eloquence. I would only suggest that the thought patterns you attribute to Americans en masse have many exceptions. FWIW, which is probably not much. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 02:37 PM He's Gonna Go to WarI knew a guy named Dithering George |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:10 PM You write that, Amos? Purdy insightfull, I'd say. I thought you were out on a limb with "fairy" but, heck, when it comes to those rhymmy things, you ain't so ordinary... Jus messin' with ya, buddy. Hey, no one ever said that resisitance is all serious stuff. We might as well have fun while we stop this war. We certainly had a blast last time around, didn't we. Hell no, We won't go Hell no, We won't go Ahhh, pass that thing over here (phfffffttttt...cough...) Hell no, We won't go Hell no. We won't...... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:10 PM Singable as well as relevant, which isn't always the case. Though it tends to be the case when Amos writes'em.
Mind I get very uneasy when people juxtapose "freedom, democracy and free enterprise" as in that quote Amos gave us, and when they talk as if they had equal status, and had been fully worked out.
So here is some thread drift arising from that. (But Amos started it...)
Even "freedom" is a complicated idea - my freedom to play loud music late at night messes with your freedom to get a night's sleep, for example.
As for "democracy", nobody has found a way to translate that into reality on any except the smallest scale, without throwing up all kinds of anomalies. Electoral anomalies, like having elections where the loser wins, and clashes between the rights of the majority to decide what should be done, and the rights of the minority not to be told what to do.
As for "free enterprise" - as widely interpreted and practiced and promulgated this covers some of the most monstrous and destructive types of economic activity and chicanery which has ever been practised on the planet. Enforcing this kind of things on countries where people want to try doing it some other way, or who might wish to put other values above those of private profit, is to risk going clear against any commitment to "democracy."
I'm not putting down the idea of freedom, or the need to aim towards democratic structures. I'm not even dismissing the limited validity of "free enterprise" as a necessary part of a humane and viable economic system.
But the suggestion that all these complicated concepts have been fully and finally worked out and fitted together into a blueprint in Washington, and in the United States, and that it just needs to be applied around the world - I think that is a very dangerous suggestion indeed, and one which threatens to have terrible consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:28 PM But the suggestion that all these complicated concepts have been fully and finally worked out and fitted together into a blueprint in Washington, and in the United States, and that it just needs to be applied around the world - I think that is a very dangerous suggestion indeed, and one which threatens to have terrible consequences. Oh, McGrath!! Watch out, man. That kinda seditious talk will have Blair's Boys knocking at your door to see if you qualify for Viewpoint Correction and Severe Subjective Reality adjustment!! :>) Well said, truly. The degree to which some people want to boil things down to knee-jerk packages is really disgusting. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:28 PM Like I said somewhere or another, McGrath, how are we going to sell something we ain't even got right? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:33 PM Amos, FWIW, I agree. I just wish I met more of them. But the stereotype of the ignorant American is largely true. You aren't going to be educated about world politics by watching the 6 o'clock news -- you have to WANT it. And wanting to be educated about world events is not fashionable, hip or even considered worthwhile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:38 PM Tu as bien raison, ma chere! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 09:02 PM Here ya go, Bobert. This one's fer you, pal A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 24 Sep 02 - 03:43 AM Good answer NicoleC -
To yourself, Amos, Bobert, McGoH and to many others, I would like to remind you of one thing - It has always been my contention that without the full backing of the United Nations, there will not be a war.
You guys on the other hand are totally convinced that there will be.
Answer me one question - How is he going to do it? Please consider in any answer that may be forthcoming, the following factors: 1. The operation must be totally amphibious 2. Air space over Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Oman and the Yemen are no-go areas. 3. Immediate knock-on effect to countries at the moment solidly behind America - particularly those in the far east. 4. The current world economic situation. I repeat my question - How is he going to do it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Sep 02 - 07:05 AM It'd be very foolish of him to do it, and it would have incalculable risks, and the overall effect would be likely to be disastrous.
I wish that was another way of saying I'm sure he won't do it - but it isn't. Governments sometimes do very foolish things.
For example, announcing this new "Bush doctrine" at this time was extraordinarily stupid - it will have had the effect all over the world of getting the backs up of people who might be expected to be sympathetic towards the USA. It was the last way to talk to the world at this time.
Except of course he wasn't talking to the world, he was talking to his supporters at home - and he was sending a clear message of contempt to the rest us around the world. The suggestion that an administration which could do that is really engaged in a cunning game of bluff designed to avoid war, or even is anxious to win support for an internationally backed war against Iraq just doesn't stand up.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 24 Sep 02 - 07:50 AM All well and good Kevin - BUT HOW IS HE GOING TO DO IT? Until the draft of the proposed new resolution is put before the United Nations everything is TALK. With regard to that talk, it must galvanise the UN into taking this seriously and it must leave Saddam Hussein in no doubt that something will happen, while he is trying to cope with that he can be doing little elsewhere. The bulk of the correspondence on this, and other related, threads is a catelogue of, "Woe, woe and three times woe, he's going to war, he's hell bent on war, he's going to do it regardless!!!" HE's GOING TO DO WHAT EXACTLY?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Sep 02 - 09:12 AM Maybe he's not going to war, maybe it's all a bluff. Or maybe they are going to do something very stupid and very reckless. If you could rely on governments not to do things just because they were very stupid and very reckless, we would have relatively few wars. If the USA does go to war unilaterally or virtually unilaterally, what I imagine they'd do would be to use aircraft carriers and bases in neighbouring countries (regardless of what the inhabitants or even the governments wanted) to bomb Iraq from a great height, either selectively or massively, in the expectation of a collapse of civil society and of any significant military opposition. The idea then would be to send in some kind of ground troops.
Maybe Turkey could be brought on side to occupy Northern Iraq, and crush any Kurds who wanted to preserve the limited autonomy they have at present.
And there'd be an effort to have some kind of Iraqi opposition involvement, ideally to provide ground forces, but at any rate to provide a political figleaf.
And with luck there'd be some Iraqi general on the same lines as America's former protegé Saddam to come over, and emerge as the new strong man in Iraq.
Whether it all works is pretty questionable. I think the chances are it would all end up with a radical Islamic regime in power in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and a few of the Gulf States. And a lot more potential for death and glory operations like September 11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 24 Sep 02 - 09:59 AM In case anyone failed to notice the talk of war, all by itself, is forcing up the price of oil. Wonder who benefits from that? Tony Blair has issued a "dossier" describing the fears of Saddam's ability to deploy WMD in some detail, but again attributing the infomration to generalized intell without specifics. Thing that bothers me is the grandstanding; if Bush says they got 'em and Saddam says "Bring in the inspectors" and Bush then says "You're just blowing smoke." Well,w here's that leave us? And Teribus, don't put words in my mouth. You don't see a strategic path absent alliances in the area? Work it out from Jayne's. The capabilities are there. I qagree with you it will be a lot harder, more expensive and less popular without the United Nations front. But not impossible. None of which means there _will_ be a war. Just that Bush is awful willing to act like he's gonna have one. The jerk. A
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Greg F. Date: 24 Sep 02 - 09:03 PM Kevin, a question: from this side of the pond I find it difficult to understand why Tony Blair is so willing to carry the can for the Bushites. British politicians haven't historically shown much inclination to toady for U.S interests & I'm curious why Blair - in light of the overwhelming opposition of the Britrish people- is so supportive of Bush's insane program. Thanks, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 24 Sep 02 - 10:02 PM Based on his "Dossier" he beieves the intell and sees a serious threat. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 25 Sep 02 - 02:59 AM Just what words am I putting in your mouth Amos?
What I said in my previous post was: "...NicoleC - To yourself, Amos, Bobert, McGoH and to many others, I would like to remind you of one thing - It has always been my contention that without the full backing of the United Nations, there will not be a war.
You guys on the other hand are totally convinced that there will be." You mean to tell us that you were only kidding when you posted the "He's Gonna Go to War" song.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 25 Sep 02 - 05:19 AM Neither Amos, or, McGoH have come anywhere close to answering two, very basic, questions I have asked, specifically, regarding the contention by the afore-mentioned, and many others contributing to this thread, and other related threads, that President George W Bush and his administration are hell bent on attacking Iraq, even if that means doing so without the full backing of the United Nations. In their attempts to answer, they have completely ignored some very important constraints that undoubtedly would apply if the USA did decide to go it alone. They also completely ignore the reality of the situation the US military would find themselves with respect to the part of the world they would be operating in. I have always stated my personal opinion that action could only be taken against Iraq by a coalition force fully backed by the United Nations - also that that coalition force must include full participation on the part of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other states on the southern coast of the Arabian Gulf. In attempting to answer my question - Kevin (McGoH) actually supports my contention. Amos advises me to consult Jaynes to highlight, his belief, that America possesses the necessary military capability to carry this enterprise through, without alliances being in place in the theatre of operations. I, in turn would advise Amos to take a good look at the map of the area. The United States of America does, undoubtedly, have an extremely impressive and powerful navy. Denied access to land bases and a secure naval facility in the area - that arsenal is rendered to near impotence.
In merely referring me to Jaynes publication, as a means of convincing me, he must assume that I have no experience in naval, or military matters, or what the requirements are for the course of action, he is telling the world and its dog, his President is hell bent on. And before he protests about me putting words in his mouth - I let you judge for yourself:
From Amos's song "He's Gonna go to War" "Now ole George is kinda slimy He talks tough, dumb and old-timey And he never says just what he's shootin' for. But you can bet your bottom dollar He'll pout and rave and holler If we don't let him take his toys, and start another war! He's gonna go to war! He's gonna go to war! Doesn't matter where or when He wants carte blanche for killing men, He wants to go to wa-a-ar!" Great Britain's Prime Minister has qualified that British support is conditional on the agreement of the United Nations on the need for military action. The Arab League has qualified the support of individual states on the condition that the United Nations agrees on the need for armed intervention. My contention still stands. The talk coming out of the American administration at present is to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with what he agreed to do eleven years ago - nothing else!!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Sep 02 - 05:53 AM So Teribus, you and I are agreed that for the USA to go to war without the agreement of the United Nations would be a bad mistake, for practical as well as politcal reasons. But the conclusion you draw from that this means it won't happen, and I think that just doesn't follow. Not infrequently, Ggovernments make bad mistakes, including the government of the USA. We could all list a few.
Essentially there are three alternatives.
One is that Saddam does in fact allow complete weapns inspection, and that any weapons of mass destruction he might have are destroyed. P> The second is that he fails to do this, and that there is a UN backed attack on Iraq.
The third is that the USA sidesteps the whole inspections option as a futile exercise, and goes to war, either with the cooperation of the UK or without.
The rhetoric that has been coming from Washington appears to indicate that the third option is the most likely. Of course it could be bluff, intended as a way of trying to bring about one of the other options. There's no evidence I've heard that suggests that this is true (apart from the suggestion that it is too foolish to be a likely course of action, which I find unconvincing). On the other hand a good bluffer wouldn't show evidence. We'll see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 25 Sep 02 - 08:13 AM Kevin, you list three alternatives in your post above.
The first is the most probable outcome.
The second is likely, but Saddam will want to hold onto what power he has in Iraq and to allow this course of action to be taken, he knows for certain that he would lose that power.
The third is superficially credible but in reality impracticable.
My reasoning behind saying that is as follows: 1. Operating entirely unilaterally (i.e. on their own, no allies, no land bases), the operation would have to be totally amphibious. 2. The closest to a secure base would be Diego Garcia, use of which relies on the agreement of the UK. If permission to use Diego Garcia was denied, the alternatives are Pearl Harbour, Guam or Norfolk Virginia. 3. The American Navy has 12 Strike Carriers (2 of which are under construction, a third is currently refuelling (nuclear) on the western seaboard of the US. That leaves a maximum of 9 carriers available for use - the actual number is probably less due to refits and maintenance.
4. The air cover for America's attack on Iraq would be limited (on the proviso that every available carrier was operational and was deployed to the Arabian Gulf) to some 765 aircraft. Tasking of those aircraft would be:
Airbourne Early Warning
Now as there is no submarine threat and no obvious surface naval threat, the USN could leave behind it's anti-submarine aircraft and beef up it's numbers of strike or support aircraft. The practicalities of operating aircraft from aircraft carriers is such that to have two aircraft on task you need to have five aircraft available. So 765 aircraft does not go very far.
5. The greatest threat to US Ships operating in the waters of the Arabian Gulf will come from mines and from unconventional forms of attack (like the attack on the USS Cole). To combat these threats the US Navy has, in total, 14 Mine Counter-measures vessels and 12 Mine Hunters. These are distributed round various bases (2 of each currently in the Arabian Gulf). To get all of them there again of course assumes that they are currently all operational. The threat posed by unconventional attack would require extremely close watch on every single vessel and offshore oil installation in the area - that calls for a very wide dispersion of escort vessels and a Command Vessel to control and co-ordinate their activities.
6. The operation would require Amphibious Assault Ships. The USN has 24 of these. If all are available they could land approximately 40,000 men. The LCT's can land M-48 and M-60 tanks, not the Abrahms main battle tank.
7. To escort the above force the USN has 27 Cruisers, 58 Destroyers and 33 Frigates. These have been designed to fight against Soviet/Warsaw Pact Navies in open waters.
8. The USN has 7 ammunitions supply ships to keep this lot topped up with whatever they are going to throw at Saddam and they would be operating a long way from home. The ships assigned will also have to be provisioned and refuelled. Believe me the logistics involved to accomplish this would be enormous.
9. Operations such as flying (for carriers) and replenishment at sea calls for a great deal of space - open water, lots of it. This space is not available in the confines of the Arabian Gulf. The further away you place your carriers, the more aircraft you need to use for tanker operations, the less you have for combat assignments.
10. The US strike force's available air space would be very restricted. The choice of landing areas for ground troops would be restricted to the Shat-al Arab, or more correctly, half of it, as half is claimed by Iran. The Shia muslims who live there are also known as "The Marsh Arabs" for what I can only assume are good reasons - great place to try and land heavy weapons and armour - you then need to keep them supplied with stores, ammunition and fuel - no docks or onward transport facilities - the helicopters are going to be very over-worked. Could go on but I won't, those above ten points only take the US forces to the point of break-out. In an earlier posting on this thread reference was made to an exercise conducted by the US military, where a US Marine General was given command of the opposition forces. The results of that exercise indicated precisely what I have tried to illustrate above - while the exercise was allowed to run on (as all military exercises are), the analysis would not have ignored the points thrown up by it. I do not know of, or have not heard of, one single military opinion from the US that does not agree with the impracticality of this scenario. Based on that, and my experience of the operations required, I firmly believe that UN involvement is essential - so does George Bush and his advisors.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:18 AM Teribus: I hpope there will be no war but if Congress passes war authority to the White house, coupled with all the huff-n-puff that we're all ready getting from that branch of governemnt, I think the chances are increased rather than decreased. Sure, it makes sense that Bush would not go to war but just huff-n-puff and blow Saddam's house down. He gets a little short term victory out his game of brinkmanship, he keeps some mighty big dogs off the front page and he might even dupe the American people into electing some of his buddies. Hey, as far as I can see, if al;l that works then he's one heck of a politican. Leader? No. But, heck, I'd rather see him blow is wad early enough in his term, just like his father did, so there's time for sorry domestic policies to bite him on his arrogant and rather short-sighted butt in two years... Works for me, just fine... And BTW, brinkmanship is real easy to play when your sitting on the cream of the crop of WMD's. And Amos: thanks for the link. I bookmarked it and will get back to it when time permits. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Donuel Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:24 AM The logistics of war and politics of oil can be very complex. I will just take a few lines and be simple. The drums of war have inspired many simple hard working Americans to think "The muslim world is acting like a bully, and when you appease a bully, they just get worse. ATTACK!"
Does this exclusively apply to muslims?
Muslims have always had a difficult time with the other children on the playground, be it Hindus, Christians, Jews, Bhuddists or the various sects within Islam. Muslims have a hard time professing their faith without denigrating or destroying others.
The same can be said of other bullies with vast tehnological power and insane policies of arming muslims with explosive weapons, bio-war agents and ceaseless bombing campaigns to show them who is boss. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:34 AM Very persuasive, well argued, T. Does not having UN consensus to launch operations against Iraq mean that there would be no allies in such an operation? If it came down to it, I believe the Bush apparatus would be able to solicit some support from some nations. The bulk of the mouth of the Persian Gulf belongs to Kuwait, for example, from Al Faw down to Ras al Khafiji, roughly. Israel is just over Jordan, poetically enough, from the whole northwestern border. The whole eastern end of the Med is available for flight deck operations. So I think there would be alternatives. That said, please recognize that my parody of "In the Jailhouse Now" was, indeed, a parody, and not a rallying cry. Surely if Mister Bush can blithely pretend to ready up for war, I can pretend to make fun of him for it. Your reference to the lessons offered at the Global exercise (I think that's the one) by USMC Col acting as CINC of OPFOR is really highly relevant. He made it plain that it will be the unexpected that forces deployed there will have to deal with. But let us hope that the U.S. does not have to abide by W's rhetoric. A The words you put in my mouth were that I was totally convinced there willb e a war in Iraq. Like you, but perhaps for different reasons, I prefer to believe there will not be. But I believe there could be, and it would have some very ugly consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:47 AM Teribus, I take it that yiou think the multiple time that the Bush administration has insisted they will go to war without without the UN is baseless? Going to war without a local base of operations is HARDER, but the SOP of massive air strikes can be undertaken from the aircraft carriers in the Gulf. Action afterword is more difficult. But that doesn't mean we'll have to go that route. Qatar is already waffling about troops. The smaller countries in the area like Bahrain and Qatar can probably be bullied or swayed into to. Let's not forget Kuwait -- not an ideal place to station troops, but it would work very well for landing troops in mostly friendly territory and then have them move into Iraq. When you're the 800 pound gorillla, these are minor obstancles. YES it's impractical without. But Shrub hasn't shown himself concerned with such subleties up to now. And it's been reported several times in the news the Gen. Tommy Franks has already delivered plans for different scenarios or attacks on Iraq. Do you really think the the swollen Pentagon budget never built equipment to handle this kind of assault? Don't take my work for it. My bro (the West Point grad) and I disagree on almost everything political. His response was unequivically "yes, we can." (Of course, he thinks blowing people up is fun, but that's a military education for you.) Haven't we learned ANYTHING? Must we train a new batch of despotic warlords? So much for fostering democratuc rule. Here's scoop from Reuters this morning: "The White House, in a reversal of long-standing policy, is expected to seek approval from Congress soon to give military training to up to 10,000 members of the Iraqi opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. The goal of the training is to create an array of forces to assist the U.S. military in a possible attack on Iraq, the Times said, quoting Bush administration officials and Iraqi opposition sources... In order to pay for the training, the White House plans to notify Congress it wants to use $92 million yet to be allocated from the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which allows the Pentagon to provide training, non-lethal goods and services to seven opposition groups, the Times said." That means $92 million dollars of weapons instead of blankets, food, and education. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:52 AM The mouth of the Arabian Gulf is the Straits of Hormuz. The northern side is Iranian - with the naval base at Badarabas, the southern side is Omani. Moving south from the along the coast you have Sharjah, Dubai, Doha then Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Your eastern seaboard airbase supposes American aircraft would violate the airspace of sovereign countries. Historically they have never done this - example from recent history - the air attack on Lybia - permission to overfly was denied by France and Spain. Air attacks launched from Fairford in the UK had to fly down the Atlantic coast and into the Med through the Straits of Gibralter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:55 AM military training to up to 10,000 members of the Iraqi opposition Isn't that kind of how the Taliban got started? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 02 - 11:12 AM ..remarks made recently by retiring House Majority Leader, Dick Armey (R-Tex.). Speaking at an event last Friday in Florida, Armey said, "I always see two Jewish communities in America: one of deep intellect and one of shallow, superficial intellect. Conservatives have a deeper intellect and tend to have occupations of the brain in fields like engineering, science and economics," while liberals gravitate to "occupations of the heart." After a couple of Democrats kvetched about the comments, Armey explained that he didn't mean to offend anybody, it's just that "liberals are generally not very bright." C'mon, Bobert -- le's roll! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Donuel Date: 25 Sep 02 - 11:20 AM by John Pilger
The making of a United Nations fig leaf, designed to cover an Anglo-American attack on Iraq, has a revealing past. In 1990, a version of George W Bush's mafia diplomacy was conducted by his father, then president. The aim was to "contain" America's former regional favourite, Saddam Hussein, whose invasion of Kuwait ended his usefulness to Washington.
Forgotten facts tell us how George Bush Sr's war plans gained the "legitimacy" of a United Nations resolution, as well as a "coalition" of Arab governments. Like his son's undisguised threats to the General Assembly, Bush challenged the United Nations to "live up to its responsibilities" and condone an all-out assault on Iraq. On 29 October 1990, James Baker, the secretary of state, declared: "After a long period of stagnation, the United Nations is becoming a more effective organisation."
Just as Colin Powell, the present secretary of state, is busily doing today, Baker met the foreign minister of each of the 14 member countries of the UN Security Council and persuaded the majority to vote for an "attack resolution" - 678 - which had no basis in the UN Charter.
It was one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the United Nations, and is about to be repeated. For the first time, the full UN Security Council capitulated to an American-led war party and abandoned its legal responsibility to advance peaceful and diplomatic solutions. On 29 November, the United States got its war resolution. This was made possible by a campaign of bribery, blackmail and threats, of which a repetition is currently under way, especially in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In 1990, Egypt was the most indebted country in Africa. Baker bribed President Mubarak with $14bn in "debt forgiveness" and all opposition to the attack on Iraq faded away. Syria's bribe was different; Washington gave President Hafez al-Assad the green light to wipe out all opposition to Syria's rule in Lebanon. To help him achieve this, a billion dollars' worth of arms was made available through a variety of back doors, mostly Gulf states.
Iran was bribed with an American promise to drop its opposition to a series of World Bank loans. The bank approved the first loan of $250m on the day before the ground attack on Iraq. Bribing the Soviet Union was especially urgent, as Moscow was close to pulling off a deal that would allow Saddam to extricate himself from Kuwait peacefully. However, with its wrecked economy, the Soviet Union was easy prey for a bribe. President Bush sent the Saudi foreign minister to Moscow to offer a billion-dollar bribe before the Russian winter set in. He succeeded. Once Gorbachev had agreed to the war resolution, another $3bn materialised from other Gulf states.
The votes of the non-permanent members of the Security Council were crucial. Zaire was offered undisclosed "debt forgiveness" and military equipment in return for silencing the Security Council when the attack was under way. Occupying the rotating presidency of the council, Zaire refused requests from Cuba, Yemen and India to convene an emergency meeting of the council, even though it had no authority to refuse them under the UN Charter.
Only Cuba and Yemen held out. Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: "That was the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast." Within three days, a US aid programme of $70m to one of the world's poorest countries was stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia. The ferocity of the American-led attack far exceeded the mandate of Security Council Resolution 678, which did not allow for the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and economy. When the United States sought another resolution to blockade Iraq, two new members of the Security Council were duly coerced. Ecuador was warned by the US ambassador in Quito about the "devastating economic consequences" of a No vote. Zimbabwe was threatened with new IMF conditions for its debt.
Little has changed, and humanity deserves better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Sep 02 - 12:09 PM As I said, Teribus, we are agreed that unilateral attack by the USA wold be very stupid. I very much hope that there is someone saying those things in the White House, and being listened to. Maybe Colin Powell. Maybe Tony Blair.
But stupid thinks happen. The Bay of Pigs was pretty stupid...Vietnam...Saddam's occupation of Kuwait...the Falkland/Malvinas affair... and so on and so forth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 26 Sep 02 - 04:52 AM Sorry for the delay in getting back to you NicoleC - but better late than never:
Point by point - my reply to your post above: "Teribus, I take it that yiou think the multiple time that the Bush administration has insisted they will go to war without without the UN is baseless?" For the past eleven years Saddam Hussein, has, in varying degrees, thumbed his nose at the UN in the firm belief that they would do nothing - that is a fact. The rhetoric coming out of Washington, combined with the current evaluation of what could happen if Iraq's weapons programmes are allowed to advance unchecked, has caused the UN to re-evaluate its position with regard to the regime in Iraq and its inaction and flagrant contravention of existing UN resolutions. As a result, Saddam Hussein has agreed to the return of UN weapons inspectors - in his view, that's no problem, we've had them here before and we successfully got rid of them, we'll do the same again. The continuing rhetoric coming out of Washington is maintaining pressure on the UN Security Council to act, while serving to impress upon Saddam Hussein that this time, he will not be given the opportunity to interfere with intrusive weapons inspections in the slightest degree. "Going to war without a local base of operations is HARDER, but the SOP of massive air strikes can be undertaken from the aircraft carriers in the Gulf. Action afterword is more difficult."
I tried to illustrate in my post above how limited your massive air strikes would be based from aircraft carriers. You also seem to believe the myth that countries can be bombed into submission - that has never happened in the history of the use of air power. Please don't quote Afghanistan as an example. What toppled the Taliban from power in Afghanistan was the Northern Alliance forces ON THE GROUND - American air power broke the stalemate and gave those forces freedom of movement by denying it to the Taliban forces - Air power alone would have accomplished nothing. The same applies to Iraq now.
"But that doesn't mean we'll have to go that route. Qatar is already waffling about troops. The smaller countries in the area like Bahrain and Qatar can probably be bullied or swayed into to. Let's not forget Kuwait -- not an ideal place to station troops, but it would work very well for landing troops in mostly friendly territory and then have them move into Iraq. When you're the 800 pound gorillla, these are minor obstancles."
Qatar's Foreign Minister is on record stating that action will only be countenanced with the backing of the United Nations. As to other countries being bullied or swayed, you forget the circumstances that brought about the formation of the coalition in the Gulf War - Iraq, a muslim country, attacked Kuwait another muslim country and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, leader of the muslim world. Iraq's actions were indefencible within the tenets of Islam - that is what forged the coalition then. The same arguement cannot be used now - in fact any muslim country assisting America in an attack not sanctioned by the United Nations, which of course includes the countries comprising the Arab League, will be viewed in the muslim world as the aggressor. As to the suitability of Kuwait as a forward base, or staging post? - Its too near and too small. You can deter an attack by stationing troops there (As the British did in the 1950's) but it is less than ideal for launching an attack from.
"YES it's impractical without. But Shrub hasn't shown himself concerned with such subleties up to now."
At the moment its all talk - to achieve his aims George W doesn't have to concern himself with the subtleties. The game is going his way within the frame work of internationally accepted protocols.
"And it's been reported several times in the news the Gen. Tommy Franks has already delivered plans for different scenarios or attacks on Iraq."
Essential paper exercise to maintain the credibility of the threat. This also has to be done should the UN agree to military intervention as the US would provide the major part of any force.
"Do you really think the the swollen Pentagon budget never built equipment to handle this kind of assault?"
Actually Nicole, it's not what I think its what I know. The swollen Pentagon budget you refer to, specifically built equipment to handle a global conflict - the threat then being Soviet Russia - not brush-fire type wars and not wars without allies. The track record of the American armed forces on the few occasions where they have had to respond to such actions has not been good. If you do not believe me, go to the web-sites for the US Navy, or to Jayne's Fighting Ships. Look at the armamnets of the destroyers and frigates, look specifically at what their armament is in terms of short range, rapid fire, small calibre weapons - you will find they are greatly lacking - the Phalanx system is of little use - that was designed for defense against anti-ship missiles - rate of fire is too high, degree of depression insufficient.
"Don't take my work for it. My bro (the West Point grad) and I disagree on almost everything political. His response was unequivically "yes, we can." (Of course, he thinks blowing people up is fun, but that's a military education for you.)"
The "Yes, we can." answer is based purely on paper not on reality - there again your brother is West Point (Army). Thankfully for western democracy both Hitler and Stalin thought in terms of army. This mind-set completely blinded both to the importance of naval power and strategic air power. If indeed your brother, due to his military education, thinks that blowing people up is fun, he is definitely, in my experience, the exception to the rule - or the selection process for West Point is greatly flawed. Without exception, I have never encountered any military man who was eager to instigate military action - for what I assume are obvious and logical reasons. "Haven't we learned ANYTHING? Must we train a new batch of despotic warlords? So much for fostering democratuc rule. Here's scoop from Reuters this morning: "The White House, in a reversal of long-standing policy, is expected to seek approval from Congress soon to give military training to up to 10,000 members of the Iraqi opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. The goal of the training is to create an array of forces to assist the U.S. military in a possible attack on Iraq, the Times said, quoting Bush administration officials and Iraqi opposition sources... In order to pay for the training, the White House plans to notify Congress it wants to use $92 million yet to be allocated from the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which allows the Pentagon to provide training, non-lethal goods and services to seven opposition groups, the Times said." That means $92 million dollars of weapons instead of blankets, food, and education."
Utterly ludicrous and totally incredible and her's why:
1. The time frame is completely wrong. This would take years to put into effect and time is the thing the world does not have.
2. There is the matter of credibility: Hypothetically, Nicole, you are an Iraq Kurd, or Shia Muslim, you are in your mid-thirties. Through uncensored, clandestined, radio you hear of this American programme - in the light of your own personal experience, post "Desert Storm", are you going to believe it? are you prepared to trust it? - I would venture to suggest - NOT ON YOUR LIFE, NOT AS LONG AS YOUR ARSE POINTS DOWNWARDS. With respect to brush-fire wars and limited action conflicts, the United States of America has never understood Templeton's philosophy of "Hearts and Minds", and because it is not understood it can never be effectively implimented. That is why you tend to leave situations having achieved short term objectives without achieving long term aims. If there is to be any regime change in Iraq - that will come through the Ba'Aath Party - to date no other credible candidates have emerged. There has been some mention of America supplying Saddam Hussein in the past with chemical and biological weapons - that is not correct - those weapons were originally supplied by Russia in the Soviet era - Iraq then developed its own capacity to manufacture the contents. FACT.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 26 Sep 02 - 01:50 PM The news reports are saying that the opposition groups inside Iraq are the ones asking for the military training funds, and have been for some time. The $92 million would come out of funds already set aside for said opposition groups, only the US has balked at actually military training so far. Since we are already supporting those groups and have been for a long time, our credibility with them isn't at stake. If they were thinking about suddenly starting up a new program, I'd agree that any takers would likely be the very bottom of the barrel. I agree that trying to train troops and put them into action requires years of training if it's going to be effective. My point was that training rebels in unstable countries has come back to bite us in the arse in the past and you'd THINK that we'd have figured out that arming unstable countries is pretty stupid. As for my bro, he was a Blackhawk pilot. Army is not all infantry. He was always chomping at the bit to got into action and always got stuck behind a desk instead. His wife, who does have combat experience, is decidedly less enthusiastic about war :) I agree, most military folks aren't nearly as enthusiastic about war as those who've never had to face it head on. I used to date an 82nd Airborne guy; he also thought war was cool, but he'd never faced hostile fire either. I think we've beat this one to death. I think the Bush administration is willing to act unilaterally, and I hope they don't get away with it, but it is logistically possible. Expensive and dangerous, but possible. You think that the Bush administration WON'T act unilaterally, but you still don't want them to get away with it, and you don't think they could pull it off anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 26 Sep 02 - 02:13 PM This tread, unoftunately, is turning more into a tactical thread so I'm spending more time over in the peace tent but I would just throw a few thing in for thought: 1. Desperate people do desperate things. 2. Civilians make great shields. 3. In a street fight, the warrior with the home field advantage, is tough to beat. 4. Vietnam Okay, those are for tactical considerations. As fir the geo-political, I'm gonna be in D.C. on Sunday marching against Bush's plans, no matter what protocol check list he's got on his desk, before he calls for the insanity to begin. There are options and we have time. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 26 Sep 02 - 02:53 PM I'll be with you in spirit Sunday, Bobert; good luck.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 26 Sep 02 - 03:00 PM Thanks, Nicole. Now you just stay here and keep an eye on Teribus though I'm sure a few of his buddies will be there poundin' their drums... Jus funnin', Teribus. Man, you gotta loosen up. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 27 Sep 02 - 03:54 AM The situation as of today appears to be:
The American & British Position:
We want the inspectors to go back in as soon as possible. They must be afforded full co-operation and their inspection must be intrusive and unhindered. As they have been there before we would like an additional UNSC resolution that clearly spells out to the Iraqi Government what will result should there be any attempt by them to derail than inspection programme.
The French Position:
We want the inspectors to go back in as soon as possible. They must be afforded full co-operation and their inspection must be intrusive and unhindered. This we believe can be accomplished under existing UNSC Resolutions.
Should the efforts of the weapons inspectors experience any hinderance from the Iraqi authorities we would expect the United Nations Security Council to convene so that a new resolution can be agreed upon to ensure Iraqi compliance.
The Russian Position:
We want the inspectors to go back in as soon as possible. They must be afforded full co-operation and their inspection must be intrusive and unhindered. This we believe can be accomplished under existing UNSC Resolutions.
The only difference I can see in the three positions outlined above is in the perceived urgency of the matter. I have attempted, as best as I am able, to set out my stall to back up my belief that the United states of America will not act unilaterally - I still hold to that belief. If they should, it would be disasterous for the world, including the United States - I believe they know that. And Bobert I am not, nor ever have been, the one pounding the drum here. I do believe, from past experience, that the position outlined by the USA and Britain above is the the way to go, i.e. operating solely within the auspices of the United Nations - that is not beating the drum, or showing any great desire to go to war. It was the threat of war that prompted the invitation for the return of the arms inspectors, it will be the threat of immediate action that will ensure that they will be allowed to do their job. Nicole, you continue to ignore the enormous logistical difficulties that would have to be overcome should America attempt to go it alone. The basis for your belief, presumably, being in the perception that America is all powerful - they are not, not unless they are prepared to set the world alight, and if that ever looked likely, the American people would stop it dead in its tracks. How could unilateral action by the current American administration be thwarted by the rest of the world? The rest of the world in the form of the United Nations can blockade the Straits of Hormuz to deny America access to the Arabian Gulf. It would take a hell of a lot of selling to the American Senate, House of Representatives and population should any President ask for permission for American forces to open fire on Russian, French, British ( I include Britain because our man is on record as having said there will be no action that is not backed by the UNSC), Japanese, etc, etc, ships that could be used to enforce that blockade.
A little story from history: The greatest gamble Hitler ever took was the re-occupation of the Rhineland - he needed the industrial complexes and raw materials. The selected point of entry was over a bridge in a zone under French control. When he ordered the re-occupation the troops had strict orders that if they were resisted in any way, even if that resistance was in the form of one French Gendarme standing on the bridge telling them to go back, they were to turn back. Unfortunately for the rest of the world there was no French policeman on that bridge - (The source of that story is a German General, Heinz Guderian).
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 27 Sep 02 - 09:19 AM Teribus: I'm with you on the "hoping" side that all the huff-n-puff will bring about a *blink* on Saddam's part, at consider it possible. The part of me that is less optomistic is Bush's need for more of a distraction for the American voters to keep his many failed policies from rearing their ugly heads. I am also concerned about the huff-n-puff approach of the US in that the rest of the world may view it as bullying and bullying usually has its consequences, especially in a world where extremist are recruiting young folks to strap bombs on themselves and go out and blow u[p innocent folks. I just think that the US is putting off the enevitable and that is a foriegn policy that is more inclusive and compassionate. Hey, everyone knows that we have a big stick. We don't have to wave it around. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: GUEST Date: 27 Sep 02 - 10:30 AM Slight correction Bobert. The extremists are actually indoctrinating, programming, brainwashing children for the purpose of becoming bombs. (could you do that to a child?) Bush isnt bullying anyone, he is merely advising the Iraqi's that unless Saddam allows International Arms inspectors to do their job; and comply with UN resolutions which Saddam has blatantly ignored for several years. Bush will consider Saddam and his cronies A Clear And Present Danger, and will act accordingly. "A just fear of an imminent danger, though there be no blow given, is a lawful cause of war." – Sir Francis Bacon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 27 Sep 02 - 10:56 AM The entire argument here, I believe, hinges on the use of that word "just". A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 27 Sep 02 - 11:31 AM Teribus, I'm not ignoring the logistics of the issue, nor do I think America is all-powerful. "Logisitics" said D-Day couldn't happen, the Americans could never beat the British in a war, and the Normans couldn't conquer an entire island in one battle. Military logisitics is not an exact thing -- more art than science. On the other hand, I think you live in a fantasy land where the UN is willing to blockade the Gulf and risk their own troops for the sake of some people a) they don't like very much and b) to prevent the US from committing a security folly. I think you're ignoring the economics and politics of the situation. Europe CANNOT piss off the US unless they are willing to sacrifice their economic health. There's a big difference, as you say, between the people of a country being willing to support a war and being willing to lose millions of jobs to prevent a war. The Bush administration has repeatedly said that the goal is regime change. Take of UN resolutions only came up AFTER they met with resistance. It's a ploy, not the goal. Yesterday Bush justified his desire military action because Saddam "tried to kill his dad." (Of course, they were also trying to kill Saddam at the time, but that doesn't count, right? Only the other side is supposed to die when you are ina state of war.) Someone who justifies a war in personal terms is not someone making rational decisions. It doesn't matter if it would be difficult to attack Iraq -- Bush wants war. Period. He'd like to hide it in rhetoric about terrorism and safety, but there's only two ways to make a regime change happen from outside -- you go to war and physically oust the guy, or you deliberately spark a civil war and support the rebels. Either way, it's war. GUEST -- Iraq doesn't train kids to be suicide bombers. If you're the same unknown guest, you seem to keep trying to justify a religious war, when religion is not an issue in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 27 Sep 02 - 12:13 PM Nicole: I was listening to the Senate hearings yesterday on C-Span and discovered that the resolution that Bush has sent to Congress gives him the authority to go to war if any UN resolution by Iraq is villated. Now there's some pretty mundane resolutions down to returning some personal properties to the Kuwaitis that probably got blown up in the dessert by our bombers as the Iraqi's beat feet out of Kuwait. When Powell was questioned about the resoltions not having anythiong to do with WMD, he really didn't have any satisfactory answers. This morning's Washington Post has an article which eludes to something I mentioned yesterday about using civilians as shields. The Iraqi's ahve said their stategy is to pull back into Bagdad and mix with the civilians, which makes the prospect of a yhouse by house campaign all the more likely. In doing this, they will eliminate the edge that the US has and the war will certainly produce more rather than less casualties on both side, especially the US side. BUT, there is hope that, inspite of Bush's Hell-bentness on having *his* war that, for once, the spoiled little brat may instead be made to eat crow pie. The Democrats seem to be positioning themselves to make the war an elect6ion issue. We'll know over next two days. Couple that with the demonstartions over the next week and the growing uneasiness of the American voters and taxpayers, who unlike back in '63, know the deal and are willing to be heard, things could bog down for Bush. Well, tough! So you keep doing what you're doing, Nicole. And I trust you're doing other things other than wrestling with the knuckleheads here, just as I am doing. Yeah, Junior might be in for a few surprises over the coming days. At least he will know there are a lot of folks that see thru his motives.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: DougR Date: 27 Sep 02 - 02:28 PM Bobert: be sure you wear your Mudcat Tshirt during the demonstrations so we can see you on TV! Nicole: I heard the speech you refer to when Bush mentioned that Saddam tried to "kill his dad." I believe that that attempted assisination took place well after the first President Bush left office. It was during Clinton's administration, and the president took the necessary steps to foil the attempt, so don't read into this that I am criticizing Clinton. Perhaps Bush should not have mentioned this in his speech. Obviously it fed folks like you, Bobert and many others to feed the argument that he is only taking this position because it is a "personal" thing. That is one of the most outrageous charges that has been flung at Bush. Bobert: it is not surprising that you take the postion that Iraq should not be held to honoring it's commitments to U. N. Resolutions not related to WMD. You evidently don't believe they should be held to adhering to that one. Your statement that Powell presented no satisfactory answers to Iraq possessing WMDs. Satisfactory to who? You? The world? I thought EVERYBODY agrees that he has chemicial and biological weapons. These are not WPMs? Get real my friend. The replacement of Saddam as dictator of Iraq has been our government's policy since the early 90's and that includes President Clinton's administration. No one is pointing the finger at Clinton, though, and charging that he was "taking it personally." Is it because Clinton had no father (who is already dead)for Saddam to murder? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 27 Sep 02 - 05:18 PM Doug, You'll get no one to rise to the "defend-Clinton" bait around here, I think. Clinton did nothing to resolve the situation peaceful in Iraq either, although to be fair the man did try and push peace in Ireland and Israel; you can't expect him to get to *everybody.* The difference is that Clinton didn't try and whip up the world into a kill-Saddam frenzy over scant evidence. Nor did Clinton have heavy oil industry investments, so his actions in the mid-East weren't going to directly affect his self-interest. That's why no one is pointing the fingers of blatant self-interest at Clinton. But it isn't like Clinton didn't get raked over the coals when he was in office, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: DougR Date: 27 Sep 02 - 05:42 PM Nicole: as my good friend from "Country Roads" is wont to say, "that old dog won't hunt." The one I refer to is the tired old statement that Bush is going to war to help his friends in the oil business, and while he's at it, help himself. The same charges were made about his father when allied forces were sent to liberate Iraq. "He's not going there to liberate, he is going there to conquer, to capture the old fields in Kuwait and help his friends in the oil business!" That's what his critics screamed. Now I ask you, how did that war benefit Bush and oil business freinds? 1. What happend to the price of oil during and for several years following Desert Storm? Oil DECREASED in price by about $5 per barrel (it might even have decreased by $10. a barrel). That helped Bush's friends in the oil business? I don't think so. 2. What happend to Kuwait's oil fields? Other than the fact that Saddam set them afire, nothing! The allies (including the U. S.) did not sieze Kuwait's oil fields. They are still owned and operated by Kuwait. So what evidence do you, or anyone else have that Bush and his friends will benefit from a war with Iraq? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Sep 02 - 07:12 PM I am trying to imagine how it would be received by people, if a country with real firepower openly discussed for months or for years bringing about "regime change"...by armed intervention...in Britain or in the United States of America. Full scale invasion, that is. Well, it's kind of unimaginable isn't it? Almost like the present state of affairs... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 27 Sep 02 - 07:14 PM Yo, Doug, I've been waiting for a definition of a "weapon on mass destruction". I;ve asked and asked but no one wants to step up and define it. I think its a fair question to ask. Maybe its like a secret handshake? Only those who are against Saddam having any of them actually know what they are. So I'll ask once again. Take 37: What are WMD? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Sep 02 - 07:48 PM "a fantasy land where the UN is willing to blockade the Gulf and risk their own troops" - but the UN doesn't have any troops of its own anyway.
The issue is whether America and Britain are going to stick by the principle they signed up to all those years ago under which no nation will go to war without the direct approval of the UN SEcurity Council, unless they are defending themselves against an attack.
At the very least it ought to be accepted that any decision that the inspections have been obstructed, or that they have identified weapons of mass destruction which have not been destroyed, must be made by the inspectors themselves, not by some warlords sitting on the opposite side of the planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 27 Sep 02 - 09:31 PM "The rest of the world in the form of the United Nations can blockade the Straits of Hormuz to deny America access to the Arabian Gulf" "a fantasy land where the UN is willing to blockade the Gulf and risk their own troops" Revision: "UN members," which is what I presume Teribus meant, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Sep 02 - 10:04 PM Doug - I actually doubt that anyone will benefit from a war with Iraq (barring a few arms dealers and corporate CEO's). That doesn't mean that certain people in Washington don't think they will benefit from it, however. I believe they are wrong in that assumption. It will be one further step down the slippery road of hubris and moral decline for the Empire, and will bear bitter fruit, both here in North America and in faraway places. It will increase fear, hatred, and reprisal. There will be more suicide attackers, and less hope for the already despairing people in many places where most people cannot afford VCR's, computers or cell phones. There will be more denial and paranoia in the land of the consumer, the couch potatoe, and the armchair patriot who imagines the Empire is protecting him. It is not. It is protecting only a few very rich people whom you and I will never even meet or talk to. Most people, including you and me, are good people at heart...and they deserve better than this. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 27 Sep 02 - 10:20 PM Right on, Little Hawk. The benificaries will be the same ruling class folks that no one here in the Land of Cats even knows. Heck, for that matter, there's no one in this Catbox that could even meet one of them face to face. They are *protected*. Reminds me of the horses in "Animal Farm". Worked them selves to death in the fields protecting the ruling class and never saw any reward for their loyalties... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 30 Sep 02 - 03:56 AM McGoH - Don't know where the fantasy land quote or comment came from - certainly not one of mine. Way up the thread I asked two questions, to be answered taking into consideration four considerations, that I believe exist. The first two, NicoleC and I have been hammering on about, the other two seem to have been ignored. Iraq, in full production accounts for one-seventeenth of world demand - shuting down Iraqi production does not affect things that much. If, however, the US were to take unilateral action and attack Iraq it has to operate in the Arabian Gulf. That would effectively close nearly all production from that region - that comes to a damn sight more than one-seventeenth of world demand. The effect that this would have on the economies of certain countries would be catastrophic given the current world economic situation. Now then Kevin are you seriously telling me that through the UN those countries would just sit back and let that happen - Hmmmmmmmmm? Assess the risk in UN member states supplying ships to blockade the Straits of Hormuz - what exactly is the risk? They aren't going to steam up and down firing at any American warship that appears over the horizon - all they have to do is be there, a physical presence that the US cannot ignore. Purely by manoeuvre they could deny access, unless of course the American Commander-in-Chief (President) orders that his ships open fire to force their way through - Personally I don't think he would do that, particularly if NATO and Russian ships form part of that blockade - think of the consequences. NicoleC - "Logistics" said that D-Day was impossible. That is not correct, plus you cannot compare the two operations. Hitler's operation "Sealion" (Invasion of Britain) was considered impracticable by the German Joint Staff in 1940. That plan depended on the Germans capturing, as a minimum requirement, a secondary port intact. Initially, the Allied invasion planners thought along the same lines for "Overlord". They carried out a large scale raid to test the concept - Dieppe. The lessons learned, showed that such a port could not be captured so they decided that they had to take a port with them - "Mulberry". While Northern France was still in German hands the threat of mines caused them to devise means by which fuel supplies could be guaranteed - their solution was PLUTO (Pipe Line Under The Ocean)laid during operation "Neptune". The Allies had a secure base from which to launch their assault on Fortress Europe - logistically it was probably the largest undertaking ever mounted by man - but, even as early as 1940 - it was never considered impossible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Sep 02 - 05:49 AM No, the quote was from Nicole C - to check where a quote in a thread comes from (assuming it's accurate" youm can use the "find" facility in the "edit" menu in Internet Explorer. Saves a lot of time sometimes. Normally I try to put a name to a quote like that - sorry.
As I've said, Teribus, I am in full agreement with you that an attack by the USA without UN backing would be very stupid and potentially disatrous, and not just for Iraq. Where we disagree is that I have less confidence than you that the US government will not act stupidly. If various governments didn't act stupidly we would have had a lot fewer wars. I hope you are right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 30 Sep 02 - 06:28 AM Thanks for the tip Kevin. Historically, I think the balance of considered action by the President and government of the United States of America, leans more towards my belief. America has had quite a number of Presidents, who during their terms of office have faced some daunting problems, domestically and internationally. Their ability to deal with those problems has varied throughout the years but in general they have tended to get things right more often than they have got things wrong. Why this current administration's ability should be doubted by so many American catters contributing to threads on this subject stems in part as a hang-over from their last Presidential Election. Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, is viewed as a threat. The current American administration has succeeded in flagging that potential threat and ending a period of almost eleven years in which the United Nations, as an organisation has sat idly by. I have yet to hear from any of George Bush's voluable detractors one that will give him any credit for having accomplished that feat. Now, should the inspections go ahead and a report issued that vindicates Iraq's claim that it does not pose a threat to the region - all well and good.
If on the other hand they do pose a threat, enhanced by undetected development of WMD, and nothing is done about it, as is advocated by many here. How long will it be before some world leader has to stand up before an assembly and repeat a modified version of these words:
"What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us now. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, "This was their finest hour." A bit over dramatic - well maybe - I'd hate to find out the hard way.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Sep 02 - 08:30 AM Well, I imagine Saddam is probably working on a speech on those lines. Iraq's situation is far closer to that of the UK in 1940 than is that of the USA or the UK.
By that I don't mean anything nice about Saddam at all, (and it'd be great if somone in his entourage sneaked up behind him and shot him) but merely that he is at the head of a small and relatively weak country anticipating an attack from an overwhelmingly more powerful opponent.
The idea of the USA or the UK as the gallant undewrdog in the situation, 1940s Battle of Britain style, is just absurd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 30 Sep 02 - 09:19 AM Not so absurd as you may think Kevin: "that he (Saddam Hussein)is at the head of a small and relatively weak country anticipating an attack from an overwhelmingly more powerful opponent" That he is the head of a small and relatively weak country is largely down to him (Saddam Hussein) embarking on two wars - both acts of agression to support an expansionist programme. True? Hmmmmmmmm? This Iraqi "Churchill", Kevin has two objectives - he has stated both clearly and often in the past - retention of power in the region and the destruction of the state of Israel. His "...small and relatively weak country..." Militarily could wipe the floor with any of his neighbours - so your relatively weak depends greatly on who you are comparing Iraq to. Talking of Churchill - during the early 1930's - the wilderness years - Churchill continually warned everyone about the danger posed by Nazi Germany. He was accused of being a madman and a war-monger, he too was continually asked for proof to substantiate his claims. He warned of German re-armament which was in direct controvention of the Treaty of Verseilles, the league of Nations was prepared to do nothing - the world ended up paying one hell of a price. I can see parallels Kevin - even if you can't - or worse still - even if you deliberately chose to ignore them. One parallel I do not see Kevin is "The idea of the USA or the UK as the gallant undewrdog in the situation, 1940s Battle of Britain style." What I do see, and hear, is the warning voice. In plain speak Kevin explain to me what brought about the volte-face within the Iraqi Government that caused them to invite the UN weapons inspection teams to return. Their original invitation stated the words unconditional access - Correct?
Latest we have is that unconditional as far as Saddam Hussein means is that:
1. Inspectors can only inspect military sites;
2. No surprise inspections will be permitted. Now then Kevin, both you and I are in agreement that the weapons inspectors should return and that they should be allowed to do their job. Hypothetically, as one of those inspectors, would you sign up to a report stating categorically, that Iraq possesses no WMD or capability having completed your inspection under the conditions laid down above - I'm damn certain I would not. Again in plain speak Kevin, can you please tell me how will it be possible to ensure that the inspectors get to do the job they are supposed to go in there and do? In answering please remember what happened between 1991 and 1998. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Sep 02 - 01:03 PM Matter of fact, Churchill was somewhat of a warmonger in his basic nature, I think. He was a very aggressive fellow when it came to national policy, and he made some extraordinarily brutal, really insane statements here and there (like declaring on one occasion that it would be desirable to exterminate every last Japanese...man, woman and child). Be that as it may, he was exactly what England needed at that juncture in history, given the fact that Hitler was a WHOLE LOT WORSE! I have always seen Churchill as a rather checkered character. Kind of like Patton, who loved fighting battles and was good for nothing in peacetime. those guys are great to have when you're engaged in a life and death struggle...they are a liability when it's over. This was, I think, perceived instinctively by the British public after the war, and they voted for a change in leadership. Your account of the D-Day planning was interesting and accurate, Teribus. It was a very well executed operation in the logistical sense...less so in the tactical sense...until Patton made his spectacular breakout and end run. I believe if they had given him everything he wanted (particularly fuel) he would have been in Berlin by Christmas '44...or even sooner than that. One hell of a good fighting general! (and just a little bit mad...) I do not agree that Iraq is any serious danger to the USA. Rather, Iraq is an excuse. An excuse for the further extension of a much larger world-wide plan of action by the USA. The USA, like other great empires of the past (Soviet Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, Persia, Rome, Carthage, Greece, etc...) is attempting to enlarge its spheres of influence and perpetuate certain forms of economic and social inequality upon which its fortunes have been built and maintained. Iraq is the excuse of the hour. A new excuse will be found in due course of time. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 30 Sep 02 - 01:45 PM LH: Iraq is not just an excuse, I'm sorry. It is a pretty sorry excuse for war even as it stands, but there is a situation. The question is how to resolve it. Saddam stands among his neighbors something like a mad dog in the corner of a kennel. I am sure the other dogs don't know what to do, and there is risk -- how great I am not sure -- that the whole area could be infected by his violent and dictatorial nature. But our "risk management" approach really sucks. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 30 Sep 02 - 02:08 PM SOme counterpoint to the "No situation" point of view that is sometimes voiced here. No judgement on the reliability of any particular part of the data presented: War Crimes -- Saddam Hussein Nuclear Capability Efforts -- Saddam SUicide Missionaires in Iraq Blood Money This is not descriptive of a no-risk situation. Not in the real world. I still do not believe a march to war is a sensible approach, however. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Sep 02 - 03:00 PM The inspectors last time did a pretty good job, considering they were up against the blocking efforts of the Iraqi government in the one hand, and, on the other hand, the largely successful effort by the US government to use the inspection process as a spying operation.(That isn't even a controversial claim which anybody bothers to even deny.) Even so they achieved a lot.
No doubt Saddam is going to wriggle and twist, but there's good reason to think they'll be at least as effective this time, and probably more so. If they are allowed in by Washington in the first place. Yes, and maybe all the huffing and puffing by Bush and Co is just a bluff by the USA aimed at getting Saddam to stop playing silly buggers about inspection. We're on then outside playing guessing games based on very limited information..
As for the Churchillian parallels - well, Churchill was all in favour of using poison gas against the Kurds, which the British government did when it was firming up its control of what was then Mesopotamia, so that's one thing in common. The parallel shouldn't be stretched too far - the numbers killed were smaller, and maybe there's a difference between gassing people in a foreign country and gassing rebellious citizens in your own country. Maybe.P> And Britain was a consistently expansionist imperial power when the opportunity was there. But by the summer of 1940 it was very much the weaker party in the fight with Germany.
It's also worth remembering that Saddam's record as an expansionist has been disastrously unsuccessful. Even his war against Iran was only carried out when he had the green light from Washington, and without American help it would have been even more disastrous from his point of view. As for Kuwait, this seems to have been a case of Saddam misreading the signals, and launching the occupation under the impression the USA had given him the nod.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 01 Oct 02 - 04:00 AM "The inspectors last time did a pretty good job, considering they were up against the blocking efforts of the Iraqi government in the one hand, and, on the other hand, the largely successful effort by the US government to use the inspection process as a spying operation." Oh that's all right then - no need for them to go back in. Saddam says he's disarmed - lets take that at face face value and get on with our lives - GET REAL. You either believe that or you don't - by the way what was wrong with the US using the exercise to "spy" on Iraq - sounds like making best use of an ideal opportunity to me - Talk of spying on the part of the Iraqi regime only holds up if they know themselves that they have something to hide. If they hadn't what the hell did it matter. "No doubt Saddam is going to wriggle and twist, but there's good reason to think they'll be at least as effective this time, and probably more so. If they are allowed in by Washington in the first place." The last time they were in Kevin they did not accomplish the job they were put in there to do - because Saddam wriggled and twisted to such an extent that he finally decided that "I don't have to play this game of silly buggers any more, get the hell out of it." - a fact that you completely ignore. Another fact that you completely ignore, even at the point of being asked point blank - the inspectors have been invited back in purely because of the action of the American Government - HARD FACT - now all you have to do is admit that - without the pressure that America has exerted over the past few months we would be in the same position as we were a year ago with respect to Iraq. Failure to admit that fact implies that there is no problem with Iraq and that your firm belief is that left alone and free of sanctions Iraq poses no threat to the region - all you have to do Kevin is go on record as saying so - you won't do that. Like Private Fraser in "Dad's Army", you know how to run things better than anyone else,but run a mile if ever offered the chance to actually be responsible for anything, for fear you might get it wrong. Churchill was in no position to direct conduct of operations in Mesopotamia - Harris's biography covers the period very well. On the subject of policing using airpower it ran along the following lines according to Harris (who was there). Tribe causing trouble, leaflets were dropped on their village giving advance notice (Down to the time of attack) that their village would be bombed. People move out of the village and watch, people then return to village and rebuild village - while they were engaged in that they were to busy to cause trouble anywhere else. "And Britain was a consistently expansionist imperial power when the opportunity was there. But by the summer of 1940 it was very much the weaker party in the fight with Germany." Dominions, Kevin, Dominions - know of any other Empire that adopted that concept?? A "consistently expansionist imperial pwer" ? not really by the reign of George Vth the empire was actually starting to contract. I quoted the final part of a speech by Winston Churchill made in June 1940 - read the whole speech Kevin and then come back and tell me if Churchill thought that Britain was weaker than Germany in 1940. To give you a hint as to the meter and content - Churchill outlined his enemies weaknesses and British strengths in a manner that was downright prophetic. That Saddam Hussein's expansionist ambitions have been unsuccessful are due largely to people keeping an eye on him. He, and he alone, instigated the war with Iran, because they decided to talk to him - he took that as a sign of weakness (that is documented by Saddams chief negotiator). Washington only stepped in when it looked like Iraq was going to lose. Saddam went after Kuwait in the hope that their oil revenue would boost Iraq's own to help pay for the war with Iran and further his ambitions in the area. His ambitions have not altered one jot. At the time lots of people were saying that Bush senoir doesn't give a damn about Kuwait, he's after their oil, if sovereignty was an issue they (the UN) would be up in arms about East Timor. As has been pointed out above, the coalition went in to liberate Kuwait - did they take over Kuwait's oil fields - NO THEY DID NOT. Within a few years the East Timor situation was resolved (they have just taken their place at the UN). One thing I did say in one of my earlier posts was that once the Iraqi question was settled, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will be tackled - this I still believe. This entire exercise has been explained away by some as a means by which the corporate "fat cats" will make a "killing" - where??? seen the stock market lately - there's no bastard making a killing anywhere at the moment - and if history repeats itself, any action against Iraq will be followed by a slump. Little Hawk: I would tend to agree with your perception of Churchill - I differ greatly on your opinion of Patton - the man was an idiot who if placed in command could easily have lost the allies the war - Roosevelt and Marshall both recognised it and placed him accordingly. Of the Generals who commanded armoured formations during the second world war Zhukov and Guderian were the most effective strategically and tactically, Bradley and Montgomery were next in their appreciation of what was required within the big picture, Rommel and Patton could only view the situation immediately in front of them, they were superb tacticians. The best of the lot, on the British side, oddly enough did not get the chance to show his full potential. That was O'Conner, he got captured in the first German counter offensive in the Western Desert - with 30,000 troops he had just successfully routed 250,000 Italians, unfortunately his style was to be up with the leading formations and he got cut off. Exactly the same trait did for both Rommel (seriously wounded in a strafing attack in the forward area in Normandy) and Patton (killed by a mine in the forward area). I also notice that you are fairly selective with your list of empires, you do not mention Aztec, Inca, Mayan, Zulu, Spanish, American or any North American Indian nation for that matter - they all had their empires too - the main difference between those you mention and those I have included and the British Empire was that the British, Dutch and to a certain extent the French Empires were based on trade, not conquest. Some indications of this: 1. Taking Victorian times as the height of the British Empire, Britains Army today is larger than Victoria's Army every was by some 20,000 men. 2. I mentioned America above. Take two sets of Islands in the South Pacific, Hawiahi and Tonga. The first an American colony, the second a British colony. In Tonga the indigenous culture still flourishes, in the other the native culture was almost completely eradicated and is only slowly being brought back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Oct 02 - 04:54 AM "Oh that's all right then - no need for them to go back in. Saddam says he's disarmed - lets take that at face face value and get on with our lives "
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: GUEST Date: 01 Oct 02 - 09:21 AM Churchill spoke the truth when he said: "Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Sound Familiar? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: GUEST,Ireland Date: 01 Oct 02 - 09:56 AM Mc of H you do write some bs, "And Britain was a consistently expansionist imperial power when the opportunity was there. But by the summer of 1940 it was very much the weaker party in the fight with Germany". Why distort the truth to make your point,if you have to resort to that is your point worth making. Two wrongs do not make a right, if chem warfare was advocated in the 1920's,and the nuclear/chem warfare threatened by the US in the 50's, does not warrant the use of such WMD's now by Saddam. Is your argument based on "if we use it they can"? Churchill spoke the truth on many issues,at the end of ww2 he lobbied to fight on and take Russia, if that advice was taken the cold war would not have happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Oct 02 - 12:38 PM But what on earth was untrue about what I said there, Ireland? That Britain was weaker than Germany by the summer of 1940? Or that Britain was an expansionist imperial power when it was in a position to be?
Look at a map of the world dating from the first part of the century, and se how much is red. That was the British Empire. "Wider still and wider shall the bounds be set, God who made thee might, make thee mightier yet."
If you read into what I said some suggestion that there's no difference between Saddam and Churchill, or between Britain in 1949 and Iraq in 2002, you're reading into it something I never actually said, and something I wouldn't have said.
If I believed that two wrongs made a right I would have said so. Two wrongs make two wrongs.
If they had tried to "fight on and take Russia" at the end of World War II the most likely result would have been mutiny by the troops, and Communist governments throughout Western Europe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: GUEST,Ireland Date: 01 Oct 02 - 03:33 PM I accept your point on the expansionist, but not on the weaker aspect of your post. Battle of Britain was not weaker,I agree with the comments of Teribus,I see no need to repeat them. As for taking on Russia the war in the pacific was still raging, so in real terms the war was not over, no mutiny would have occurred as many units were made ready to go to the pacific, staying in Europe would have made no difference. Churchill seen the threat from the Russians/communists, who btw were not in the position to fight another war. If such an attack was launched it would have forced Russia to retreat to defend themselves,thereby ensuring Russia did not have the resources to occupy the Countries they did. More importantly it would have avoided the mess and a potential war that would make ww2 look like a picnic, when both sides faced each other at the Berlin wall. Add on to that the Cold war and Cuban missile crisis etc, it would have been a prudent step. As for the European communist governments they were useless when Germany attacked them, what good would they have been to Russia, none, the ball was dropped big time Churchill was ridiculed as a war monger, but he was right all along about the threat of communism. BTW I'm not distorting fact to make my point, that is my main objection to your post. In a way I can see Bush's and Blair's point, they are trying to prevent a war in the future where stakes may be much higher. Should the same mistake made with Russia, which allowed them to become more powerful and dangerous than they were in 1945 be repeated with Saddam? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Oct 02 - 04:18 PM I still haven't the faintest idea of what distortion there was that you saw in that post of mine, Ireland. I think you might be misunderstanding what I said about Britain being weaker than Germany in the summer of 1940. My point was that in military terms Germany looked a lot stronger, and the general assumption was that it was a lot stronger, and that Britain would come to terms. In fact if you read Churchill's speech about "fight them on the beaches" what he is describing is a desperate but determined fighting retreat, against the odds. Now I suppose there may be revisionist historians who might claim that in fact this was exaggerated, and Britain was actually in a much stronger position, and was really stronger than Germany even at that time. But I don't find them very convincing. Arguing the toss about past history is entertaining enough, though nothing more. But the suggestion that it would have been possible to turn the British Army against the Russians at the end of the war - I don't believe there would have been a snowball's chance in hell of doing that. And I can't imagine the American troops being too keen on it.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: GUEST,Ireland Date: 01 Oct 02 - 06:22 PM mc G of H, incase you missed teribus' reply wrt your distortion here it is again " Dominions, Kevin, Dominions - know of any other Empire that adopted that concept?? A "consistently expansionist imperial pwer" ? not really by the reign of George Vth the empire was actually starting to contract. I quoted the final part of a speech by Winston Churchill made in June 1940 - read the whole speech Kevin and then come back and tell me if Churchill thought that Britain was weaker than Germany in 1940. To give you a hint as to the meter and content - Churchill outlined his enemies weaknesses and British strengths in a manner that was downright prophetic" Another example : taken from a speech Churchill gave To the House of Commons, 18 June 1940 after Dunkirk. We have, therefore, in this island today a very large and powerful military force. This force comprises all our best-trained and our finest troops, including scores of thousands of those who have already measured their quality against the Germans and found themselves at no disadvantage. We have under arms at the present time in this island over a million and a quarter men. Behind these we have the Local Defence Volunteers, numbering half a million, only a portion of whom, however, are yet armed with rifles or other firearms. We have incorporated into our Defence Forces every man for whom we have a weapon. We expect very large additions to our weapons in the near future, and in preparation for this we intend forthwith to call up, drill and train further large numbers. Those who are not called up, or else are employed upon the vast business of munitions production in all its branches-and their ramifications are innumerable-will serve their country best by remaining at their ordinary work until they receive their summons. Have I made my point? There was never any assumption that Germany looked stronger, even after the Dunkirk disaster. The American troops war was not over,because Germany fell, there were troops in the pacific, what were the European based US troops going to do? Go home and forget about the troops in the Pacific. You are basing your argument on your assumptions of what you think they would do, not on what they would have to do if ordered. The armed forces are not a democracy you do what your told. If the allies agreed with Churchill the troops would be sent in no matter what they think or want. It turns out Churchill was right Russia was a threat to world peace. The amusing part about history are the made up stories the downfall; people trying to pass it as fact to prove a point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Oct 02 - 06:55 PM Armies do not always do what they are told. In any case Churchill lost the election - and all the evidence is that the soldiers overwhelmingly voted Labour. I suppose it is possible to imagine some scenario in which he refused to hold the election and tried to hold on to power and declared war on Russia, and attempted to make allies of the remnants of the German Armed Forces ...But I can't actually see Churchill going for that one himself, let alone the mass of the people or the British armed forces.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: GUEST,Ireland Date: 01 Oct 02 - 07:34 PM Mc G of H, your yanking my chain. Do you need the complete speech to prove you wrong. The point is your going on assumptions,all soldiers overwhelmingly voted labour,some job that as no elections over the war period were held. What idiot is going to divide their country politically to win an election during war time? Do know nothing, elections are suspended during times of war, a coalition government is put in to run the country. I'm now getting a grasp of were you may have been educated,not an attack on you,just an indictment on your educators who as you do, use half truths to make a point. Churchill had many enemies, but not one can now say he was wrong wrt Russia, Read his speeches here's the link http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.html do the search. You might learn. I don't find them convincing. I somehow doubt that what kept people fighting at the time was confidence in victory, but rather determination and hope, and a refusal to accept defeat. Defend that, the British army was raring to go,they knew they could beat the Germans, to go to war with your reasoning is just plain nonsense. Do you know the period your talking about, how could the British people be so defeatist in the first year of the war? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Oct 02 - 08:11 PM This is getting a bit silly but one more go. My view - which is shared by most people of my generation - is that in 1940 Britain had, as they say (and said at the time)"its back against the wall", that it looked as if it was likely to be defeated. There was a famous Times Editorial at that time, which quoted a stanza from Chesterton's Ballad of the White Horse: I tell you naught for your comfort, Yea, naught for your desire, Save that the sky grows darker yet And the sea rises higher. The decision to continue to resist was open-eyed and heroic. Defeat was seen as preferable to surrender. Victory was something to be hoped for, rather than expected. And somehow I get the impression that you think, Ireland, that this somehow diminishes the stature of the people who refused to give in in 1940. Or maybe I completely misunderstand you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Oct 02 - 09:13 PM teribus - Those other empires you listed...absolutely. I agree with you entirely. I was not being "selective" in my listing of empires so much as I was just trying to avoid typing the longest run-on sentence in history by listing them all. Here's are some more: the Iroquois Six Nations, the Mongols, the Moghuls, the Khymers, the Japanese, the Italians, the Portuguese, the Comanches, the Scythians, the Parthians, Sparta, the Poles, the Turks, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum. To be under the heel of any of them was not necessarily a very pleasant experience, if you lived to enjoy it very long. That there is an American empire, and has been for some time, is something I frequently draw attention to. In fact, it is THE Empire nowadays, complete with stealth fighters and bombers that look just like something Darth Vader would have dreamed up. I'm intrigued that you think Patton was an idiot. I agree that he was a difficult personality, but I think his military instincts were superb. He always saw where a breakthrough could be made, and how to do it, and he didn't hesitate for an instant. The Germans regarded him as by far the best general on the Allied side. He was also irascible, egotistical, undiplomatic in the extreme, and guaranteed to make enemies in high places by shooting his mouth off. Now, in the case of the Battle of the Bulge (Ardennes offensive) Patton wanted to go in behind the German bulge, after it had been contained, and bag the whole lot. He could have done it too. But Eisenhower would not go along with that. No sir, Eisenhower fought them slowly back, yard by yard, on a wide front, fighting a battle of attrition against German troops who were probably the best in the world at fighting a dogged retreating defence. I think Eisenhower was the idiot. I think his plodding and unimaginative strategy cost the Allies months of time, many lives, and the loss of most of Eastern Europe to the Soviets. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I do know this: the Germans were truly scared of Patton. They were not scared of Eisenhower, Bradley or Montgomery. Patton was the Guderian of the Allied forces, crazy or not, he knew how to get the job done, and done fast. As for O'Connor, I agree with your assessment of him. He was very good. The Italians sometimes fought very well too, BTW, which is remembered by almost no one, but they generally lacked the specific modern equipment needed to win on the battlefield, not to mention the industrial strength to put it out in sufficient quantity. Their tanks were very inadequate, many of their aircraft were quite obsolete or undergunned, and their Navy utterly lacked 3 crucial items...aircraft carriers, radar, and flashless powder (for night fighting). This led very rapidly to complete impotence and frustration for the Italian fleet, and resulted in it spending most of its time in harbour and getting torpedoed by British carrier aircraft...whether in harbour or at sea. They were in no way prepared to fight that war. This was usually pretty plain to their soldiers in the field, and that doesn't help in maintaining morale. Now Germany...they could have won the war. But I think the odds were fairly long against them, and Hitler's insane political and social policies led them further and further away from reality. As to whether they were stronger than Britain...I would say they were considerably stronger in 1940, except for one thing: the Royal Navy. Britain was damn lucky that the channel was there, that Germany had a very small fleet of surface warships, and was also lucky that Goering insisted on tieing his fighter planes in close escort to the bombers over Britain instead of letting them roam free and do what they did best...shoot down fighter planes and strafe them on the ground. The Germans could have won the Battle of Britain, given just a couple of better decisions by Goering. If they had, I believe Britain would have fallen in the fall of 1940, and the government would have no doubt fled to Canada, and directed the British Empire from there. After that, God knows what would have happened, but it would not have been good. Not good at all. If I may paraphrase Otto in "A Fish Called Wanda"..."If it wasn't for Goering, you'd all be speaking German!!!" (He said "if it wasn't for the USA" or words to that effect) - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 02 Oct 02 - 03:46 AM We've wandered a bit, but to continue: Kevin, in 1940 at the time when Churchill declared that the Battle of France was over, Hitler asked for invasion plans from the Chiefs of Staff of all three of his armed forces. In addition he also asked for a plan from his Joint Staff. Of the three individual staffs, Army, Navy and Air Force, only the Air Force said it could be done. The Joint Staff agreed with the Army and the Navy that it couldn't. The main reason Kevin was Norway. In occupying Norway, Hitler had lost his Navy - a point made by Churchill in the speech I referred to in my post. Extracted from the speech by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons, 18th June, 1940: "Here is where we come to the Navy-and after all, we have a Navy. Some people seem to forget that we have a Navy. We must remind them. For the last thirty years I have been concerned in discussions about the possibilities of oversea invasion, and I took the responsibility on behalf of the Admiralty, at the beginning of the last war, of allowing all regular troops to be sent out of the country. That was a very serious step to take, because our Territorials had only just been called up and were quite untrained. Therefore, this Island was for several months particularly denuded of fighting troops. The Admiralty had confidence at that time in their ability to prevent a mass invasion even though at that time the Germans had a magnificent battle fleet in the proportion of 10 to 16, even though they were capable of fighting a general engagement every day and any day, whereas now they have only a couple of heavy ships worth speaking of-the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau. We are also told that the Italian Navy is to come out and gain sea superiority in these waters. If they seriously intend it, I shall only say that we shall be delighted to offer Signor Mussolini a free and safeguarded passage through the Strait of Gibraltar in order that he may play the part to which he aspires. There is a general curiosity in the British Fleet to find out whether the Italians are up to the level they were at in the last war or whether they have fallen off at all. Therefore, it seems to me that as far as sea-borne invasion on a great scale is concerned, we are far more capable of meeting it today than we were at many periods in the last war and during the early months of this war, before our other troops were trained, and while the B.E.F. had proceeded abroad. Now, the Navy have never pretended to be able to prevent raids by bodies of 5,000 or 10,000 men flung suddenly across and thrown ashore at several points on the coast some dark night or foggy morning. The efficacy of sea power, especially under modern conditions, depends upon the invading force being of large size; It has to be of large size, in view of our military strength, to be of any use. If it is of large size, then the Navy have something they can find and meet and, as it were, bite on. Now, we must remember that even five divisions, however lightly equipped, would require 200 to 250 ships, and with modern air reconnaissance and photography it would not be easy to collect such an armada, marshal it, and conduct it across the sea without any powerful naval forces to escort it; and there would be very great possibilities, to put it mildly, that this armada would be intercepted long before it reached the coast, and all the men drowned in the sea or, at the worst blown to pieces with their equipment while they were trying to land. We also have a great system of minefields, recently strongly reinforced, through which we alone know the channels. If the enemy tries to sweep passages through these minefields, it will be the task of the Navy to destroy the mine-sweepers and any other forces employed to protect them. There should be no difficulty in this, owing to our great superiority at sea." That doesn't sound as though the man is describing a fighting retreat. Further on in this same speech he outlines the importance of the air battle to take place. While admitting that the numerical superiority lay with the Germans, he listed the advantages the fewer RAF machines would have fighting over southern England and the inherent disadvantages for the Germans. He backed his reasons for his confidence in the RAF on their performance in the air during actions in France, particularly at Dunkirk, where the RAF actually managed to establish air superiority over the Luftwaffe. From his speech of the 4th July: "Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." Note Kevin the phrase. "..and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving,.." You quote the famous line of the speech relating to fighting on the beaches as an example of fighting against the odds in a desperate rear-guard, a fighting retreat - certainly doesn't read like that to me. From his speech to the Commons shortly after forming his coalition government. The date of the speech was 10th May 1940: "To form an Administration of this scale and complexity is a serious undertaking in itself, but it must be remembered that we are in the preliminary stage of one of the greatest battles in history, that we are in action at many other points in Norway and in Holland, that we have to be prepared in the Mediterranean, that the air battle is continuous and that many preparations, such as have been indicated by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, have to be made here at home. In this crisis I hope I may be pardoned if I do not address the House at any length today. I hope that any of my friends and colleagues, or former colleagues, who are affected by the political reconstruction, will make allowance, all allowance, for any lack of ceremony with which it has been necessary to act. I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength." Note Kevin the chronology of those speeches. Having read through them all, at no point in any do I detect the slightest hint of desperation or defeatism. George Bush and Tony Blair, backed by the the actions of the Iraqi Government over the past twenty years, backed by the UNSCOM Report of January 1999 and backed by intelligence data and eye witness reports, are telling the world that in this region of the world, vital to the interests of a great many countries, a grave threat exists. Further, that in the opinion of their advisors, they firmly believe that it is prudent to meet and neutralise this threat now, as the risks and consequences of delay will be catastrophic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 02 Oct 02 - 04:26 AM The main driver behind Churchill's attitude to the Russians, and the threat they posed, towards the end of the war in Europe was his belief that they would not stop at the lines agreed in Tehran and Yalta. I don't believe he was warmongering in that attitude - he was warning of events that might transpire. If that had proved to be the case the Allied armies in western Europe would have fought Kevin - there would have been no mutiny. The thing that put the Russians off was that the Russians were shown the effects of strategic airpower - the Russian airforce at that time was similar to the German Luftwaffe, its principal task was tactical support of their ground forces - they had no strategic airpower. Their observers were totally incredulous at the degree of devastation wrought in Germany and that was reported back to Stalin in Moscow. The point was further reinforced with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Little Hawk: The German view of Patton was that he was the best at handling armour, not that he was the most capable general on the allied side. The generals who defeated the Germans in detail were the ones who knew how to deploy and use artillery - Zhukov and Montgomery. The Battle of the Bulge was fought over a period were the allies were denied the use of airpower, due to weather. Had Patton been given his head and lanced in behind the salient, under those conditions, the chances are that his armour would have been cut to shreads. Remember, at this time, Guderians defensive tactics on the Eastern Front had been adopted by the German armies in the west. Using those tactics in the east, three German divisions, required enormous numbers of Russian troops to dislodge them (In some cases two whole armies were required). The Russians were fighting with far superior armour (T-34/85 and latterly JS-III tanks), Patton had the Sherman - only the British Sherman Fire-Fly, armed with its 17 pdr gun could successfully take on the German Mk V's and VI's (Panther and Tiger tanks). The objective of Hitlers Ardennes offensive in 1944 was the Belgian port of Antwerp. Eisenhower, Bradley and Montogomery were of a single mind that its protection was paramount for continuing operations against the Germans. On the other hand - I would agree that had Patton been in command of the armoured columns assigned to operation "Market Garden", instead of Vandeleur and Horrocks - I think the operation would have been a complete success. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Oct 02 - 05:28 AM "We shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle" - that's a fighting retreat he was anticipating, holding on gainst the odds "until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:28 AM McGrath of Harlow, Guest Ireland in a previous post above referred to your predeliction for selective quotes. Your posting above is a classical example of it. To use Boberts favourite phrase "That dog won't hunt" as anyone following this exchange has been given the complete text. But if you want to quote selectively you could have done a much better job than than your total distortion above: For example: "Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." You could have distorted to become: "...many old and famous States may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." Kevin, the man clearly states that he does not believe the hypothesis he goes on to describe, but he does say what would happen in that unlikely event. There is a tremendous difference there and what you contend. I drew your attention to the dates of the various speeches. In the paragraph of the speech you have selectively quoted from - Just exactly what is implied by the reference to fighting in France? What was he going on about when he spoke of fighting with growing strength and confidence? If that describes someone contemplating a fighting retreat, I'd love to hear how that person would describe an all out offensive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: GUEST Date: 02 Oct 02 - 08:49 AM Mc G of H it depends which generation you belong to I'm only 39, and my generation did not have that opinion, but then i was lucky enough to be taught by those who were there, albeit at the end of their teaching careers. As an ex soldier how soon would you think I'd last in the British Legion if I put across your views? Teribus has said all and more than I would have he has proved his point - but if you disagree on the grounds that it is your opinion not your generations so be it. The lesson to be learnt is simple,we can call Bush and Blair war mongers,but in doing that we need to remember people said the same about Churchill when he pointed out the threat of (Stalins)Russia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Oct 02 - 08:59 AM Well, if you insist on the idea of poor little Germany not really having a chance against big strong Britain after Dunkirk, you're welcome to see it that way, friends. But I think if you go down to the British Legion and tell them that, you might not find too many people who see it that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 02 Oct 02 - 10:50 AM Hey up Kevin, Your the one peddling the misconceptions, while others are coming back at you with facts and statements from that time, not opinions based on a retrospective look at events. I say that, as what has been quoted comes from speeches made in the House of Commons and broadcast to the nation on: 10th May, 1940; 18th June, 1940; 4th July, 1940. I can only assume at the time, the man knew what he was talking about in the full understanding that his audience could appreciate exactly what he was telling them. Having been totally disproved you come back with "poor little Germany" crack. Aye Kevin for you the cup is always half empty, just as it always was for Private Fraser. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:03 AM Oh Kevin, up to now we have just been referring to what Churchill said. Take a look at some facts and analysis of Hitler's "Operation Sea Lion". Why Sealion is not an option for Hitler to win the war One of the more common suggestions that crop up at all-too regular intervals goes along the lines of: "If Hitler hadn't switched from bombing airfields to bombing cities, then Operation Sealion would have worked." Unfortunately for these suggestions, the plan for Sealion was perhaps the most flawed plan in the history of modern warfare. Getting it to a workable state requires so many changes that an author's artistic license would be revoked. What follows is an analysis of Sealion. Operation Sealion - The Background When France collapsed, in mid-June 1940, the German staff had not even considered, never mind studied, the possibility of an invasion of Britain. Troops had received precisely zero training for seaborne and landing operations, and nothing had been done to gather the means of getting troops across the Channel. At the time, the balance of naval forces in the region were as follows: RN : Kriegsmarine 5 capital ships : 1 capital ship 11 cruisers : 1 cruiser 53 destroyers : 10 destroyers 23 destroyers on convoy duty : 20-30 submarines In addition, the RN had countless smaller craft, including sloops, minesweepers, converted trawlers etc. These would have been of marginal value against warships. However, against the Rhine barges forming the main invasion transport force, they would have been effective. Thus, any Sealion which takes as its Point of Departure the premise that German forces attempted to cross in the immediate aftermath of Dunkirk has to answer the following questions: How are troops transported? How will the Germans cope with contested air? What is going to prevent the RN from interfering? Once ashore, how will the German forces be resupplied? If we turn our attention to point 3 for a while, the standard response is to say that the Luftwaffe could sink the RN ships. However, the Luftwaffe of the period had a pathetic record against warships. 39 RN destroyers took part in the Dunkirk evacuation. This operation required manoeuvring in a small harbour, with periods stationary while embarking troops. The Luftwaffe had command of the air for long periods. In these ideal conditions, the Luftwaffe managed to put out of commission a grand total of 4 destroyers. 4 out of 39 does not bode well for the Luftwaffe's chances. However, the most typical AH suggests that if the Luftwaffe had continued to attack the airfields of 11 Fighter Group, Sealion would have worked. Operation Sealion - The Plan We turn to the formal plan for Operation Sealion. The first instruction to begin planning was issued 2 July, giving 84 days before the invasion. (D-Day had been planned for 2 years). The Germans planned to lift 9 divisions (D-Day had 5). In Normandy, the Allies had total naval and air superiority, a host of special equipment, considerable hard-won experience, and a considerable level of support and assistance from the local population. Despite facing defenders that can be most charitably described as second-line, the Allied forces did not have an easy time on D-Day. Amphibious combined operations require close co-operation between the various branches. The Germans did not have this. The Wehrmacht wanted a broad-front landing (it proposed Ramsgate to Portand - 275 miles). The Wehrmacht expected the Kriegsmarine to carry out a landing on this massive front in the face of an overwhelming superior navy, with no transport fleet yet assembled. The Wehrmacht document stated: "The Luftwaffe will do the work of artillery, while the Kriegsmarine will do the work of engineers." Meanwhile, the Kriegsmarine were displaying a similar level of understanding of the needs of the Wehrmacht. It stated that the time between first landing and the second wave of reinforcements and supplies would be 8-10 days. Thus 9 Wehrmacht divisions, without any heavy equipment or resupply, would be expected to hold out against the 28 divisions in Britain, which had unlimited access to supplies and the available equipment. Hitler called a meeting on 31 July to decide among the various options. The Luftwaffe did not attend this meeting, although it was recognised that the Luftwaffe was essential to win air supremacy and to keep the RN out of the way. The Kriegsmarine proposed landing 10 infantry regiments at Folkestone, because a broad front would be impossible to protect. The Wehrmacht did not like this. The discussion moved on to purely army matters, so Raeder left the meeting. In Raeder's absence, Hitler announced that he favoured a broad front approach. It was not made clear what the Luftwaffe was expected to do. On 1 August, Hitler told the Wehrmacht and the Kriegsmarine that an essential prerequisite was that the Luftwaffe gain "Total domination of the air." The Luftwaffe, however, was told by Hitler on the same day that it had to achieve "Temporary or local air superiority." Examples of such total lack of co-operation abound. Operation Sealion - The Crossing Ignoring for the time being the air battle, we will look at the mechanism proposed for getting 9 divisions across the Channel. This was the responsibility of the Kriegsmarine. The plan was: Block the west end of the Channel with U-Boats (operating in shallow, confined waters and required to stop, with 100% effectiveness, fast-moving warships rather than slow-moving merchantmen). Block the east end of the Channel with mines and 14 torpedo boats (with 20 enemy destroyers immediately to face). The main surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine was to "Break out into the Atlantic and draw the Home Fleet into following it." Even if this exercise in wishful thinking worked perfectly, there was a problem. The RN had, based within the limits proposed, 3 light cruisers and 17 destroyers. However, the Kriegsmarine had thought of this, and decided that the barges would be adequately protected if the soldiers on the barges (travelling at night) "Fired at unidentified ships". Less adequately considered by the Kriegsmarine was how to capture an intact port. The chosen port was Dover. The operational plan was to sail the barges in and capture it. This was the detailed plan. The defences of Dover included a considerable amount of equipment "Surplus to establishment" (courtesy of HMS Sabre, which had passed on abandoned equipment from Dunkirk). This equipment included: 3 Boys anti-tank rifles 19 Bren guns 4 mortars 3 21" torpedo tubes 8 6" guns 2 12 pounder guns 2 14" guns, called Winnie and Pooh. There were two limiting factors. Firstly, lack of ammunition (the anti-tank rifles had only 19 rounds each) and lack of personnel. (The CO complained to his diary that he didn't have enough troops to use all the weapons he had, and he couldn't request more troops because he shouldn't have all this equipment in the first place.) Overall, the plan to capture Dover was far less well thought out than the Dieppe fiasco. The German logistical plan to get troops and supplies across the Channel were not as professional and thorough as that for the initial crossing described above. To get the first wave across, the Germans gathered barges and tugs, totally disrupting their trade in the Baltic. Eventually, 170 cargo ships, 1277 barges, and 471 tugs were gathered. These were, inevitably, bombed by the RAF (about 10% being sunk before they dispersed again). The barges were mainly those designed for use on the Rhine, with a shallow freeboard. They sink in anything above Sea State 2. The wash from a fast-moving destroyer would swamp and sink the barge. (Correct: the RN could sink the lot without firing a shot). The situation with regard to mariners for the barges with experience of the sea was even worse. When used as a landing craft, the barges, tugs and motorboats required extra crew. In total, the Kriegsmarine estimated that a minimum of 20,000 extra crew would be needed. That's 20,000 extra crew at least knowledgable of matters maritime. By stripping its ships to the minimum (which doesn't bode well for the Kriegsmarine if it is required to fight a fleet action), the Kriegsmarine was able to supply 4,000 men. The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe transferred 3,000 men who had been sailors in civilian life, and an in-depth trawl of the reserves and the factories and the drafts brought forward another 9,000 men. After digging through the entire manpower cupboard, the barges were still 4,000 men short of the minimum required. Nothing could alter this, and the Kriegsmarine came to the reluctant conclusion that the barges would have to sail in an undermanned condition. Finally, the barges were under-powered for open water operations, and required towing. The basic unit was a tug towing two barges, and travelling at 2-3 knots, in the Channel, which has tides of 5 knots. Given that the distance that the far left of the invasion had to cross, a minimum of 85 miles, the poor bloody soldiers would be wallowing for a minimum of 30 hours in an open boat, and expected to carry out an opposed amphibious landing at the end of it. The most comical element of the plan, however, was that for manoeuvring the flotilla. The plan was that this huge mass of towed barges would proceed in column until reaching a point ten miles from the landing beach, then wheel and steer parallel to the coast. When this was complete, the vessels would make a 90 degree turn at the same time, and advance in line towards the coast. This was to be carried out at night, and controlled and co-ordinated by loud hailers. There had been no chance to practise the operation, and there was less than one skilled sailor per vessel. If this seems to be a nightmare scenario, and a recipe for disaster, it is as nothing compared to other elements. Operation Sealion - Improvisations Given the shortage of transports, it was inevitable that the Germans would look to improvisations. These proved to be decidedly imperfect. The Engineer Battalion 47 of VII Army Corps was designated as having responsibility for the "construction of seaworthy ferries out of auxiliary equipment, local supply and bridging equipment". What was unusual in this was that this task, requiring a good knowledge of matters maritime, was tasked to this particular battalion, which had its home base in Bavaria. The engineers were nothing if not enthusiastic. They built rafts from pontoons, and were undismayed when half of these rafts sank while in harbour. Attempts to provide these rafts with power failed, because they broke up under the strain. Nonetheless, the Wehrmacht announced that these rafts would be towed behind the barges being towed by the tugs, and that the horses would thus be transported across the Channel on these rafts, saving the difficulties of loading the horses into the barges. One wonders what the horses would have made of this concept. The engineers turned their attention to pontoons used for crossing rivers. Even the most optimistic observer had to regard this as a failure. The open pontoons filled with water and sank. The iron beams holding the pontoons together snapped in waves, and the exercise was discontinued. Operation Sealion - Resupply The next phase of this analysis is resupply of those troops that make it ashore. It was recognised that it was essential to capture an intact port. Dover was the port chosen. The Kriegsmarine were told to put the Wehrmacht ashore in Dover, but nothing in the Wehrmacht plans indicates that they were required to capture Dover. It was planned to drop all the paratroopers on the heights north of Dover to help 16 Army. However, 9 Army had been told that all the paratroopers would be dropped near Portsmouth. The Luftwaffe had been told to support the seaborne landings, but no escort was intended for the paratroop drop, wherever it might end up taking place. In a stroke of tactical genius, the Dover drop zone was about the worst possible for human ingenuity to select. It was intended to drop the paratroopers 10-15 miles from the target (shades of Arnhem) in a landing zone that was a mixture of hills and hop fields. No resupply was planned. As for beachheads, there was literally no plan for tactical development. The plan states: "Once local beachheads have been won, junior commanders will set about co-ordinating small units in their vicinity and use them to seize objectives on their front. Weak but continuous fronts will be formed. These will be extended and deepened by a continuous flow of reinforcements. After daylight, but not before, the Luftwaffe will support the main effort of the assault troops, acting as artillery." It goes on later: "Premature crossing by higher staff will be valueless, as it would interfere with the flow of reinforcements. It will be the duty of regimental and battalion commanders to direct operations. The restricted area of the bridgehead will not be able to accommodate vehicles, supply columns and staffs." The Kriegsmarine's responsibility for supply ended with dumping the stuff on the bridgehead. The Wehrmacht had given the responsibility of ensuring that supplies were moved from the beach to the front to, well, to whoever happened to be on the spot and felt like getting involved in this operation. Can you say chaos? Operation Sealion - The Obstacles Just to make matters worse, no engineers were included in the first wave, and no equipment to deal with obstacles. The bulk of 9 Army was to be landed on the Romney Marshes, and would have to first of all deal with the Martello Towers - which against modern artillery, would be useless, but the Germans had no modern artillery with them. They would have to be dealt with by rifles and grenades. Then 9 Army has to cross the Royal Military Canal. Now again, this is an antiquated defence, but would actually prove to be a problem. It is 60 feet wide - and the Germans have brought no means of getting across it. Within 30 minutes of the Romney Marshes, the British had no less than 100 pieces of artillery. In the immediate vicinity of 9 Army, the British had the following: 2 Territorial Divisions 1 Brigade from India 1 Brigade from new Zealand 1 Armoured Division 1 Canadian Division 1 Army Tank Brigade Then there is the example of the question of life jackets. Thousands of life jackets had been provided. However, despite all the best efforts of the planners, there were only sufficient for the first wave. The intention was, according to the plan, that these life jackets would be brought back again by the boats for the second wave. The problem was that these life jackets were worn beneath the combat pack. Those involved would be expected, on landing on an open beach while under fire, to first take off their pack, then their life jacket, and then don combat pack, and only then start doing something about those inconsiderate British soldiers shooting at them. One wonders what the veterans of Omaha beach would say about the viability of this. Not that it would have been of the slightest use. While the Wehrmacht had been given strict instructions to do this, no-one had been made responsible for collecting the life jackets and return them to the boats. The boats, however, did have strict instructions not to wait once they had unloaded their troops. The life jackets would have piled up uselessly on the beach. Then there was the matter of artificial fog. A serious conflict of opinion arose between the Wehrmacht and the Kriegsmarine regarding the use of artificial fog. The Wehrmacht wanted it, for the quite reasonable reason that it would be the only form of protection available on the open beaches. The Kriegsmarine was opposed to its use for the also quite reasonable reason that the landings were quite difficult enough without making it impossible to see anything. Inevitably, a compromise solution was found; it was ruled that the Wehrmacht would get to decide whether or not to deploy artificial fog, but that it was the responsibility of the Kriegsmarine to actually deploy it, if practicable. This compromise would have very quickly resulted in the pantomime discussion of "Oh yes it is!" "Oh no it isn't!". Still, the Germans would have had one thing in plentiful supply. In a decision that is difficult to understand, given that there was no heavy equipment for them to pull, the Germans decided to include over 4,000 horses in the first wave. Operation Sealion - The Air So far, we have looked at an exercise in wishful thinking. We now turn to the Luftwaffe in order to gain an appreciation of the inability to count. The strength of the Luftwaffe at the point of Sealion was about 750 bombers and 600 Me109 fighters. The Germans estimated the strength of Fighter Command at 300 planes, of which 100 were not available to the RAF. In fact, 11 Fighter Group had 672 planes, of which 570 were Spitfires and Hurricanes. The Luftwaffe, with its resources, was expected to do all of the following: Act as artillery for the landing forces Keep the RN out of the Channel Win total air superiority Prevent British Army reinforcements from getting to the zone by bombing railway lines Make a mass attack on London to force the population to flee the city and choke the surrounding roads. One presumes that, in their copious free time, the Luftwaffe pilots would eat three Shredded Wheat for breakfast. Now, we actually have a pretty fair idea of how the RAF would have reacted if the southern airfields had been made untenable. Dowding had made preparations to pull 11 Fighter Group back to the Midlands in order to preserve an effective fighter opposition to an invasion proper. This would have placed the RAF fighters out of the range of the German fighters. Given the disasters that the Luftwaffe bombers suffered when they undertook unescorted daylight missions, we can see that while Kent and Sussex could have had a lot of bombs dropped on them, the industrial heartlands and the RAF and the RN ports and the British Army concentrations would have been pretty much untouched. So what happens if the Luftwaffe go after the airfields more effectively? 11 Group pulls back to the Midlands. The Luftwaffe pounds Kent and Sussex for a while, achieving diminishing returns (although the hop fields, and hence the output of beer, will be reduced noticeably). When Sealion starts, 11 Group has had chance to rest and recover and build up its strength, while the Luftwaffe have had to carry out a lot of sorties. On Sealion, 11 Group, in addition to 10 and 12 Group can re-enter the fray. They won't have so long over the area of operations, but against that, they have a huge number of potential targets - barges and landing beaches and transport aircraft. The Luftwaffe fighters have equally limited time over target, and they have a huge number of things they have to protect. If any target is damaged severely, Sealion is made unworkable. Thus the RAF need to succeed only once, while the Luftwaffe need to succeed everywhere and every time. Meanwhile, RAF's bomber command has just been presented with a massive, unmissable target in the form of the barge fleet. If the Germans are flying fighter cover over the barges, then these fighters are not flying as escort for the German bombers. If they are not escorting the bombers, then the bombers are unprotected against RAF fighters. In this case, the Luftwaffe will be ineffective at keeping the RN Home Fleet at bay. In essence, if the RAF doesn't get the barges, then the RN does. It is worth reiterating the key figures, that of fighters. At the time in question, the fighters available were 600 for the Luftwaffe, and 670 for the RAF. Britain was outproducing Germany in planes, so the proportions are steadily moving in Britain's favour. Another key element was the number of trained pilots. Again, Britain has a massive tactical advantage. A British pilot who survived being shot down could quickly be returned to operational status. A German pilot who survived being shot down became a prisoner of war, and removed from the battle. Operation Sealion - The One Exercise One single main exercise was carried out, just off Boulogne. Fifty vessels were used, and to enable the observers to actually observe, the exercise was carried out in broad daylight. (The real thing was due to take place at night/dawn, remember). The vessels marshalled about a mile out to sea, and cruised parallel to the coast. The aramada turned towards the coast (one barge capsizing, and another losing its tow) and approached and landed. The barges opened, and soldiers swarmed ashore. However, it was noted that the masters of the boats let the intervals between the vessels become wider and wider, because they were scared of collisions. Half the barges failed to get their troops ashore within an hour of the first troops, and over 10% failed to reach the shore at all. The troops in the barges managed to impede the sailors in a remarkable manner - in one case, a barge overturned because the troops rushed to one side when another barge "came too close". Several barges grounded broadside on, preventing the ramp from being lowered. In this exercise, carried out in good visibility, with no enemy, in good weather, after travelling only a short distance, with no navigation hazards or beach defences, less than half the troops were got ashore where they could have done what they were supposed to do. The exercise was officially judged to have been a "great success". Operation Sealion - The July Option Some have suggested that an immediate invasion in July would have produced success. This claim derives, ultimately, from Guderian's claim that it would have been easy at this time. This, of course, is the same Guderian who claimed to have been the first German to reach the Atlantic coast during the Battle of France. This claim was made on reaching Noyettes, on the Channel coast. It is perfectly true that the British Army was less able to resist in July than it was by September. That, however, misses the point in a fairly dramatic fashion. The difficulty facing the Germans was not beating the British Army, but it was getting across the Channel in the face of the RN and the RAF. The German capacity for doing this is lower in July, and the odds are more heavily stacked against them. Firstly, the Kriegsmarine is weaker, as a result of unrepaired battle damage from the Norway campaign. Secondly, the German forces haven't had chance to gather transports. Without the efforts of bringing up the Rhine barges and scavenging and scrounging to the extent that took place, the Germans have the capacity to lift less than one infantry division. Thirdly, according to the precise timing, the Germans are either turning their backs on the French army before the Armistice with France, and allowing the French army to recover and reorganise; or the Germans beat France and immediately turn towards Britain, without taking time to rest their pilots and Panzer crews, and without taking time to repair battle damage to their planes and tanks. Fourthly, the Luftwaffe is not being allowed any time to inflict attrition on the RAF. Much to the disgust of the French, Britain had retained 24 fighter squadrons as Home Reserve. These squadrons were rested, maintained and ready. The Luftwaffe, on the other hand, have been flying a lot of sorties. The British Radar chain is undamaged, as is the command and control; in short, one is re-running the Battle of Britain, but giving the Luftwaffe tired crews and machines in need of repair, giving the RAF peak efficiency, while ensuring that the Luftwaffe have even more essential tasks to carry out than in a September Sealion. Operation Sealion - The End We can choose to wave a magic wand, and wipe out the RN and the RAF, and examine how successful the invasion was likely to be in their absence. Sandhurst has done this on four occasions to my knowledge. Both sides were given the historical starting positions, with an invasion date of 24 September. In each case, the details of the fighting varied, but by each analysis resulted in 27 September dawning with the Wehrmacht holding two isolated beachheads, one at roughly 2 divisions strength on Romney March, and one of 1 division at Pevensey. Each were opposed by more numerous forces, with growing numbers of tanks and artillery. German resupply was still across open beaches. Operation Sealion can only be described as a blueprint for a German disaster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:45 AM teribus - You must really love history (as do I) and you must love to type! I think your pessimistic assessment of Operation Sealion is pretty convincing, and yes, it might very well have turned into a disaster for the Germans. I also think the Germans could have won the Battle of Britain, to the point of achieving air superiority over southern England by Sept/39. This could have resulted in some serious problems for the British as well, and would have seriously hampered the Royal Navy, if not driving it out of the waters near France. So, it's hard to say who would have eventually prevailed, given such a circumstance, but it's all speculation at this point. My father was in England in 1940, and his impression was that Germany was far stronger than England...except at sea. That was the general impression people had. I've got newspaper clippings he saved, and they have articles in them showing people how to set up tank traps and destroy German tanks moving through the streets of places like Slough or Maidenhead...just in case. There was clearly a great fear of invasion. But you are correct that the German plans for such an invasion were very poorly conceived. I think Hitler had hoped all along that (1) The British would be his allies, not his opponent (2) since that didn't happen, that they would soon see reason (after the fall of France) and negotiate for peace...and THEN become his allies further down the road against Russia. Accordingly, neither Hitler nor his armed forces were properly geared up for an attack on England. They went into it as an afterthought. Their best weapon against the British would probably have been to (1) win the air war (possible, but not easy) (2) threaten invasion, to tie down British forces, (3) attack the British supply line relentlessly with U-boats (the one thing Churchill said he truly feared in the whole war), and (4) NOT ATTACK RUSSIA!!! Your assessment of the Russian and American tanks in '44 is accurate. The attack I am suggesting Patton could have done to the rear of the "Bulge" would have occurred after the initial offensive had been contained, after the skies cleared (which they did after Christmas, I believe...), and would have had full air support. The Germans had no reserves to stop it, and their best armour was up forward, not in the rear. I think it would have succeeded, causing a massive surrender of German forces. Sherman tanks were indeed very inferior to Panthers and Tigers, but they were roughly equivalent in fighting power to the Panzer IV and its variants, which made up the bulk of the German armoured forces in '44, and Allied airpower could destroy Panthers and Tigers quite readily. Anyway, we'll never know, but it's interesting considering the various possibilities. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: GUEST,Ireland Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:47 AM I'm saying the British Army was able to match any thing that Germany could throw at it, Churchill's speech shows he was of the same opinion. But as usual Mc G of H, your are quoting out of context what has been said. Churchill in his speeches acknowledged the might of Germany,he also said that Britain was a match for that might. Teribus has given you enough proof on that. So your grounds for the counter argument is "poor Germans".?????? The Churchill ex. is only to show the risks we take if we do not heed those in the know, Churchills warning on Stalins Russia was ignored look were that lead us too. No matter how low or high an opinion people have of Churchill nobody can say on that issue he was wrong. Mark of a great statesman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: GUEST,Amos Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:30 PM Gentlemen: You are invited to desist from your recurring ad hominem generalizations. I have no problem if you want to re-analyze the history of the Second World War one day at a time (although you're making awfully free with bandwidth and storage). But Kevin McGrath of Harlow is a gentleman, and he engages in civil dialogue. He is not to be treated as some sort of scurrilous bandersnitch, just because you are perhaps unaccustomed to dealing with anything else. Mind your manners, and take a page from his book. Regards, Amos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: GUEST Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:55 PM LH,many US children were taught to Duck under tables during the Cuban missile crisis, that does not indicate Russia was going to win any war against America. The issue of the way ww2 was conducted is neither here nor there with regards to Bush,Iraq War, the parallel between Bush, who some people call a war monger, and Churchill's position on the taking of Stalin's Russia, who he identified quite rightly as a potential threat to world peace, give rise to the question. Do we ignore the intelligence gathered,evidence of the weapons and the advice of those in the know to face a future of uncertainty. History shows we did that in the past,Churchill is the example of such decisions the cold war was the result. Amos please give an example of uncivilised dialogue, so I can avoid using it in the future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: GUEST,Amos Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:08 PM PLEASE POST ANY FURTHER TRAFFIC FOR THIS THREAD ON Section 8, over here. THanks! Amos |